vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water £^30/9-84-004
Program Operations (WH-546) July 1984
Washington DC 20460
Construction Grants
1985 (CG-85)
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS - 1985
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. Environs--,! < -. -•; ,lOn Agency
Region V, L: T : .-
230 SoutJi [;._ ...-,- .t
Chicago, Illinois 60C04
July 1984
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
-------
NOTICE
The mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is for
illustration purposes and does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
PREPARED BY:
Municipal Construction Division and
Facilities Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Project Officer:
James F. Wheeler, P.E.
Municipal Construction Division
Project Managers:
James F. Wheeler, P.E.
Municipal Construction Division
H. William Kramer
Facilities Requirement Division
Task Managers:
Joyce Lemmon, Charles Vanderlyn, and Bruce Mintz
Municipal Construction Division
Sue Johnson
Facilities Requirements Division
Contractor:
Technical Assistance in the production of this publication was
provided by:
Brown and Caldwell, Pleasant Hill, California; and A.T. Bowyer, Inc.,
Towaco, New Jersey
11
3, Envlronner" ' "
-------
CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
FOREWORD xii
INTRODUCTION
USER GUIDE xiv
Reference to Federal Regulations xiv
1981 Amendments to the Clean Water Act xv
Terminology xv
Other Guidance xvi
Appendices xvi
MANAGING YOUR PROJECT xvi
Introduction xvi
Clean Water Act xvi
Grants Program xviii
State Contact and State Delegation . . •. xix
Project Management xxi
Organizing the Project Team xxi
Avoiding Project Delay xxiii
Allowance for Facilities Planning and Design xxiv
Compliance xxvi
Chapter
PART I. FACILITIES PLANNING
1 .... FACILITIES PLANNING—PURPOSE AND CONTENT 1
1.0 Amendments of 1981
1.1 Facilities Planning—Purpose and Definition
1.2 Contents of Facilities Plan
2 .... PREPLANNING 6
2.0 Preplanning Conference
2.1 Eligible Applicant
2.2 Plan of Study
2.3 Intergovernmental Coordination
2.4 Procurement of Services
3 .... FACILITIES PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 8
3.0 General Preparation Procedures
3.1 Public Participation
3.2 Environmental Review Process
3.2.1 Environmental Information Document
3.2.2 Historical and Archaeological Sites
iii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
3 (continued)
3.2.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Flood Insurance
3.2.4 Agricultrual Lands
3.2.5 Coastal Zone Management
3.2.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers
3.2.7 Fish and Wildlife Protection
3.2.8 Endangered Species Protection
3.2.9 Air Quality
3.2.10 Water Quality and Quantity
3.2.11 Direct and Indirect Impacts
3.2.12 Mitigating Adverse Impacts
3.2.13 Determining Need for an EIS
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS RELATED TO FACILITIES PLANNING . 21
4.0 Water Quality Management (WQM) Plans
4.1 State Priority System and Project Priority List
4.2 Wasteload Allocation/NPDES Permit
4.3 Biennial Water Quality Report
4.4 Quality Assurance
EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 24
5.0 Project Need and Planning Area Identification
5.1 Existing Environment of the Planning Area
5.2 Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems
5.3 Effluent Limitations
5.4 Infiltration and Inflow (I/I)
5.4.1 Sewer Use Ordinance and Sewer Maintenance
Program
5.5 Future Conditions
5.5.1 Population and Land Use Projections
5.5.2 Forecasts of Flows and Wasteloads
5.5.3 Flow Reduction
5.6 Future Environment Without the Project
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 32
6.0 Development of Alternatives
6.1 Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
6.2 Regionalization
6.3 Unsewered Areas
6.4 Conventional Collection System
6.5 Alternative Conveyance Systems
6.6 Evaluation of Sewer Alignments
6.7 Wastewater Management Techniques
6.7.1 Conventional Technologies
IV
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
6 (continued)
7 .
8 . .
6.7.2 Alternative Technologies
6.7.3 Innovative Technology
6.7.4 Innovative and Alternative Cost Preference
6.8 Combined Sewer Overflows
6.9 Municipal Treatment of Industrial and Federal
Facilities Wastes
6.10 Staged Construction
6.11 Multiple Purpose Projects
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL ALTERNATIVES AND PLAN ADOPTION
53
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
Alternative Evaluation
Evaluation of Monetary Costs
7.1.1 Sunk Costs
7.1.2 Cost Escalation Factors for Energy Use
and Land
7.1.3 Allocation of Costs for Multiple Purpose
Projects
Reserve Capacity
Demonstration of Financial Capability
7.3.1 Assuring Low Cost Projects for Smaller
Communities
Capital Financing Plan
Environmental Evaluation
Evaluation of Reliability
Evaluation of Energy Requirements
Evaluation of Implementability
Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities
Comparison of Alternatives
Views of the Public and Concerned Interests
SELECTED PLAN, DESCRIPTION, AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
8.0 Justification and Description of Selected Plan
8.1 Design of Selected Plan
8.2 Cost Estimates for Selected Plan
8.3 Energy Requirements of Selected Plan
8.4 Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan
8.5 Arrangements for Implementation
8.5.1 Intermunicipal Service Agreements
8.5.2 Civil Rights Compliance
8.5.3 Operation and Maintenance
Requirements
8.5.4 Pretreatment Program
64
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
8 (continued)
8.6 Land Acquisition
8.6.1 General Acquisition Considerations
8.6.2 "No-Cost Arrangments"
8.6.3 Acquisition Method
8.6.4 Allowable Land Costs
9 .... REVIEW OF FACILITIES PLANS 72
9.0 Review and Evaluation
9.1 Summary Checklist
9.2 State Agency Review
9.2.1 Advanced Treatment Review
9.2.2 EPA Actions Under NEPA
PART II. DESIGN
10 ... PREDESIGN 75
10.0 Predesign Conference
10.1 Field Testing of Innovative or Alternative Technology
11 ... DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS 77
11.0 Design and Administrative Considerations
11.1 Design Considerations
11.1.1 Pretreatment and NPDES Permit
11.1.2 Wet and Dry Well Classifications
11.1.3 Use of Mercury Seals
11.1.4 Shellfish Waters
11.1.5 Disinfection
11.1.6 Chlorination Systems Using Gaseous Chlorine
11.1.7 Chemical Storage and Hazardous Materials
11.1.8 Safety
11.1.9 Bypassing of Sewage
11.1.10 Public Water Supply
11.1.11 Ventilation
11.1.12 Laboratory Facilities
11.1.13 Emergency Alarms
11.1.14 Equipment and Materials
11.1.15 Land Application Systems
11.1.16 Erosion and Sediment Control
11.1.17 Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impacts
11.1.18 Sewers
11.1.19 Sewer Rehabilitation
VI
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
11 (continued)
11.2
11.3
11.1.20 Operation and Maintenance
11.1.21 Handicapped Access
11.1.22 Use of Recovered Materials
Administrative Considerations
11.2.1 Bidding Documents
11.2.2 Bonding and Insurance
11.2.3 Construction Incentive Program
11.2.4 Buy American
11.2.5 Royalties
11.2.6 Project Sign
11.2.7 Small, Minority, Women's and Labor Surplus
Area Businesses
Design Review
12
CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES DURING DESIGN ...
12.0 Concurrent Activities
12.1 Value Engineering
12.1.1 VE Team and Qualifications
12.1.2 Scope of Work
12.1.3 Proposal Cost and Timing
12.2 User Charge System
12.2.1 Actual Use
12.2.2 Ad- Valorem Taxes
12.2.3 Other User Charge Considerations
12.2.4 Adoption of System
12.3 Sewer Use Ordinance
12.4 Plan of Operation
12.4.1 Budget
12.4.2 Financial Management System
12.4.3 Staffing1 and Training
12.4.4 Emergency Operations Program
12.4.5 Administrative Functions
12.4.6 Start-up Services
12.4.7 Operation and Maintenance Manual
12.4.8 O&M Program for Complete Wastewater
Treatment Systems
12.5 Onsite and Cluster Systems
12.6 Innovative Designation Reconfinflation
12.7 Planning for Local Funds
94
PART III. CONSTRUCTION
13 ... GRANT APPLICATION
105
VII
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Chapter
13 (continued)
13.0 Narrative Statement
13.1 Contents of Application
13.1.1 Intergovernmental Coordination
13.1.2 Application Form
13.2 Limitations on Award
13.3 Other Step 3 Considerations
13.4 Procurement
13.5 Federal Grant Share
13.6 Grant Award
14 ... PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 114
14.0 Project Construction
14.1 Grant Increases/Decreases
14.1.1 Grant Increase
14.1.2 Grant Decrease
14.2 Preconstruction Conference
14.3 Monitoring Construction
14.3.1 Onsite Observation
14.4 Payment Requests and Limitations
14.5 Plan of Operation
14.6 Project Performance
14.6.1 Project Schedule
14.6.2 I/I Rehabilitation
14.6.3 Engineering Services
14.6.4 Corrective Action
14.7 Abandonment
14.8 Wastewater Process Influent Variations
14.9 Change Orders
14.9.1 Duties and Responsibilities
14.9.2 Conditions That May Warrant a Change Order
14.9.3 Preparation of the Change Order
14.9.4 Reviewing Agency Procedures
14.9.5 Reference Material
PART IV. FINANCIAL AND PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS
15 ... FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 146
15.0 Allowable and Unallowable Costs
15.1 Replacement Costs
15.2 Innovative and Alternative Technology Replacement
Grant
15.3 Force Account
vi n
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
15 (continued)
16
INDEX
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.3.1
15.3.2
Payments
15.4.1
15.4.2
15.4.3
Grant In<
Audits
Prior Approval
Other Force Account Considerations
Preaward Costs
Interim Payments
Final Payment
Increases/Decreases
15.6.1 Financial Records
15.6.2 Audit Procedures and Reports
PROCUREMENT ....
16.0 Introduction
153
16.1 Procurement Certification
16.2 Procurement Management and Reporting
16.3 Methods of Procurement
16.4 Formal Advertising
16.4.1 Solicitation for Bids
16.4.2 Bid Receipt and Opening
16.4.3 Bid Evaluation
16.5 Competitive Negotiation
16.5.1 Public Notice
16.5.2 Evaluation of Proposals
16.5.3 Negotiation and Award of Subagreement
16.5.4 Optional A/E Selection Procedure
16.5.5 Use of the Same A/E During Construction
16.5.6 Cost and Price Considerations
16.6 Noncompetitive Negotiation
16.7 Small Purchases
16.8 Subagreements
16.9 Minority, Women's, Small and Labor Surplus
Area Businesses
16.10 Subagreement Clauses
16.11 Protests
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Construction Grants Process
Figure 2. Major Activities in the Construction Grants Program
xvii
xx
IX
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
FIGURES AND TABLES (continued)
Figure 3. Procedural Flow Chart for Facilities Planning for
Wastewater Treatment and Sludge Management
Figure 4. General Facilities Plan Preparation Procedures
Figure 5. Comparison of Principal Alternatives
Figure 6. Project Schedule: Pre-Performance Certification Period
Figure 7. Project Schedule: Performance Certification Period
Figure 8. Project Performance Certification
Figure 9. Sample Certificate of Performance for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
Figure 10. I/I Reduction Acceptability Analysis
Table 1. Wastewater Treatment System Reliability
Table 2. Sludge Handling and Disposal System Reliability
Table 3. Electric Power System Reliability
Table 4. Grantee and Contractor Responsibilities
3
9
62
121
122
124
125
128
87
88
89
118
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix
A - Advanced Treatment (AT) Review
B - List of EPA Publications
C - Before and After Study Guidance
D - National Municipal Policy
E - Present Worth and Cost Preference
F - Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
G - Supplemental Information for Land Acquisition
H - Wet Well and Dry Well Classification
I - Construction Incentive Clause
J - EPA Project Sign
K - Financial and Management Capability Information Sheet
L - 1981 Amendments to the Clean Water Act
M - 40 CFR Part 35, Final Regulations
N - 40 CFR Part 33, Final Regulations
0 - Alternative Justifiable Expenditure Method of
Cost Allocation
P - CSO Guidance
Q - 40 CFR Part 30, Final Regulations
R - How to Conduct a Sanitary Survey
xi
-------
FOREWORD
This book is a part of our ongoing effort to simplify and delegate the
municipal construction grants program. It replaces its predecessor, CG-82, and
is based upon the final procurement and construction grant regulations (40 CFR
Part 33 and Part 35) published in the Federal Register on March 28, 1983 (as
amended) and February 17, 1984, respectively (Appendix M and N). We did not
publish a CG-83 or CG-84 because the final construction grant regulation had
not been issued. The final regulation fully implements the 1981 Amendments to
the Clean Water Act (except for Section 23, proposed regulation published
November 11, 1983),as well as those policies which the Agency feels are necessary
for sound management of the construction grants program.
The final regulations implementing the 1981 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act contain the requirements for obtaining grant assistance
under the construction grants program. To distinguish regulatory requirements
from discretionary guidance or suggestions of good practice in CG-85, the
following conventions are used: Requirements use the words "must" or "will" or
are written as imperative statements and are identified by a bar in the margin.
If there appears to be a difference between the regulations and their restatement
in CG-85, the regulations govern. Recommended methods or formats to meet
regulatory requirements use the word "should". Suggestions of good practice,
which may not relate to a particular requirement, use the words "can" or "may".
A municipality is not required to follow the guidance in CG-85 in order to
qualify for Federal grant assistance.
As stated in CG-82 and reconfirmed here, it is our desire to focus on current
statutory and program requirements that are.necessary to ensure effective project
management. Our concern continues to be results, not procedures, and we want
those results achieved in the most effective and reasonable manner possible. The
guidance in CG-85 is being provided to facilitate achieving those results at
reasonable costs. Where a municipality or State develops alternative procedures
to meet the stated results, then those procedures are satisfactory.
The changes in the final construction grants regulation are described in
their preamble and result from public comment and agency experience since the
publication of the interim final regulation on May 12, 1982. The regulatory
changes are reflected in CG-85. In addition, we have included a few changes
in CG-85 which represent new Agency policy for effective management of the
construction grants program. Among these changes are: a detailed discussion of
the review of advanced treatment facilities (Appendix A); increased emphasis on
financial capability of grant applicants (Appendix K); more detailed discussion
of categorical exclusion from substantive environmental review; increased
discussion of innovative technology; the National Municipal Policy (Appendix D);
and reintroduction of the construction incentive provisions (Appendix I).
As we continue to review our management of the construction grants program,
we remain committed to reducing procedural requirements for planning, design and
building of wastewater treatment works, to publishing new requirements only where
xn
-------
required by law or executive order or where absolutely essential for effective
program management and to facilitate delegation of the review and approval of
projects to the States. In line with reducing program requirements, we remind
you that all Program Requirements Memoranda (PRMs) and Program Operations
Memoranda (POMs) were previously cancelled. To determine which regulations,
PRM, POM, and other Agency policies apply to earlier grant projects, refer to
"Regulation and Policy Matrix" (Appendix B).
We may at some time in the future find it constructive to update or revise
CG-85 to provide improved guidance. For this reason we encourage comment on
the contents, format and usage of CG-85. Send any comments or suggestions to
the Director, Office of Water Program Operations (WH-547), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 20460.*
In closing, while clean water for the nation must be achieved by mutual
commitment of all levels of government (local, State, and Federal) the greatest
responsibility for the goal of clean water lies with the community. It is the
community that must make sure that wastewater treatment facilities are planned
and constructed properly. It is also the community that makes the long-term
commitment to operate and maintain the system throughout its useful life. To
meet these responsibilities successfully, communities must provide adequate
financial resources and effective financial management. This book provides
guidance to help accomplish each step.
William A. Whittington, Acting Director
Office of Water Program Operations
* This guidance document may not be in compliance with the laws or requirements
of every State. Prior to initiation of a project, a municipality should
contact their State agency to ensure conformance with all State requirements.
xiii
-------
INTRODUCTION
USER GUIDE
This book contains guidance to
participants of EPA's municipal
construction grants program. Guidance
is discretionary and provides
information and suggestions to help
communities successfully plan, design,
and build municipal sewage treatment
works.
A major purpose of this document is to
help communities seeking or managing a
construction grant to comply with all
program requirements contained in
Federal regulation. Therefore, for
continuity and clarity, we have
summarized those regulatory require-
ments at appropriate points within the
text. To identify them as mandatory,
we have employed words such as "must"
and "will," and highlighted them with
a bar in the left margin. Because
these statements are summaries,
the reader should not rely on them as
substitutes for the regulations. If
there appears to be a difference
between the regulations and the
guidance, the regulations govern.
The Agency is considering several
technical amendments to the Innova-
tive/Alternative (I/A) provisions
of the final Construction Grant
Regulation published February 12,
1984. Sections of the document which
may be effected by such amendments are
marked with an *. If you have any
questions concerning current policy of
the guidance presented in these
sections, contact your Regional or
State I/A coordinator for assistance.
This latest revision of the construc-
tion grants guidance supplements
the current construction grants
regulations (40 CFR 35, Subpart I)
published in the Federal Register on
February 17, 1984. These regulations
are effective for all grants awarded
on or after this date. Facilities
plans and designs initiated prior to
February 17, 1984, continue to be
subject to the requirements in
effect at that time (40 CFR 35,
Subpart E or I). Work done under
Subpart E will be accepted for grant
awards under the current regulations.
Contact your State reviewing agency
to determine additional State
requirements, if any, prior to
initiating your project.
This book contains guidance from the
preplanning stage to construction and
the initial operation of the treatment
works. It is divided into four major
parts (planning, design, construction
and initial operation, and financial/
procurement). You may need to review
only those parts which correspond to
the present stage of development of
your project.
Reference to Federal Regulations
References to regulations in this book
are made by citing specific portions
of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Virtually allregulations
applicable to the construction grants
program are contained in Title 40—
Protection of Environment. Title 40,
in turn, is broken into parts,
sections, and subsections. For
example, 35.2108 means (Title 40)
Part 35, Section 2108.
When other titles of the CFR are
cited, they will include the title
numbers before the letters CFR
followed by the part, section, and
subsection. Therefore, 10 CFR 2.7-3
means Title 10--Energy, Part 2,
Section 7, Subsection 3.
xiv
-------
At times it is necessary to cite
material published in the Federal
Register. This reference will be
shown as 45 FR 2186 which means
Volume 45, Federal Register, page
2186. When reference is made to
a law, the common name is generally
used followed by letters and numbers.
For example, the Clean Water Act
(CWA) of 1977 is the common name and
PL 95-217 means Public Law, 95th
Congress, 217th law enacted by that
Congress.
1981 Amendments to the Clean Water
Act
The Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Amendments
of 1981, enacted on December 29,
1981, significantly changed the
procedural and administrative aspects
of municipal construction grants
made after that date. Detailed
implications of these changes are
contained in the regulations and are
incorporated throughout this book.
For easy reference, the changes are
highlighted in Appendix L.
Termi no!ogy
The terminology used in this book
is defined in the regulations,
40 CFR Parts 30, 33, or 35 (refer to
Appendices M, N, and Q). Although
separate Federal grants are no longer
provided for facilities planning and
design of projects, the previous
designation of these activities as
Step 1, facilities planning, and
Step 2, design, will be retained
because of their common usage and
understanding. The term Step 3 grant
refers to building of the project
for which grant assistance is awarded.
The term Step 2+3 grant refers to a
Step 3 grant award which includes
an allowance (percentage of the
cost of building the project) for
design activities. Normally, Step 3
grant assistance will include an
allowance for the planning and design
activities.
The term "building" rather than
"construction" has been used
throughout this book to describe those
activities (erection, acquisition,
alteration, remodeling, improvement or
extension of facilities to transport
and treat wastewater) for which Step 3
grant assistance is awarded. This is
done because the word "construction,"
as used in the past, is defined in the
law to include facilities planning and
design. However, in several locations
the word "construction" is used where
its use is quite clear and less wordy
(e.g., construction drawings rather
than building drawings).
The term "advance" refers to the
Federal funds provided to small
communities that, in the opinion of
the State, would not be able to
complete the application requirements
(facilities planning and design)
without such an advance. If Step 3
grant assistance is eventually
awarded, the advance will be
subtracted from the allowance.
If Step 2+3 grant assistance is
eventually awarded, the amount of
allowance will be based on the
estimated Step 3 building cost in the
Step 2+3 application. If the grantee
has not received a grant or advance
for facilities planning, the Agency
will pay 30 percent of the Federal
share of the estimated allowance as
soon as requested after the Step 2+3
grant award. EPA will pay half the
remaining allowance when the design
is 50 percent complete. The final
portion of the allowance will be
paid after the grantee awards all
prime subagreements for building the
project.
xv
-------
Projects that received a Step 1
and/or Step 2 grant prior to the
enactment of the 1981 amendments
to the CWA should be completed
in accordance with the terms and
conditions of their grant agreement.
Those projects that received a Step 1
grant, but no Step 2 grant, prior to
December 29, 1981, will receive a
design allowance when they receive
their Step 3 grant assistance.
However, no allowance for facilities
planning and design will be included
in a Step 3 grant for projects that
received a Step 2 grant prior to
December 29, 1981.
As used in this book, the term
"project reviewer" means a State
employee reviewing your project
in a State that has been delegated
responsibility for administration of
the construction grants program or an
EPA employee reviewing the project in
a nondelegated State. The term
"reviewing agency" means the State
water pollution control agency
or, in a few instances, EPA.
Other Guidance
The text incorporates Federal
regulatory requirements and, at
times, refers to other EPA guidance
publications. The referenced guidance
publications are generally technical
(e.g., design criteria for land
application systems) and provide much
greater detail than required for this
book. Additional State requirements,
if any, will be provided by your
project reviewer.
Appendices
Appendices in this book contain a
listing of applicable EPA technical
publications, construction grants
and procurement regulations, and
technical design or evaluation
criteria. Copies of the publications
listed in Appendix B may be obtained
from your reviewing agency or from the
address listed in the appendix.
Multiple copies may be obtained from
the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
MANAGING YOUR PROJECT
Introduction
This section is intended to assist
you in managing your project. It
provides a description of the basic
objective of the CWA, provides a
summary of the construction grants
program including an expanded
discussion of the 1981 amendments;
discusses State delegation, your
project team, and other topics that
will be of assistance in managing
your project from inception through
building construction and operation.
Figure 1 (Page xvii) represents the
organization of CG-85 and the flow of
activities during the grants process.
A listing of major activities in
the construction grants program
is provided at the end of this
introduction.
Clean Water Act
The objective of the CWA as amended in
1981, sometimes referred to herein as
"the Act", is "...to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's
waters." This objective is to be
achieved in part by:
o Development of water quality
standards and the regulations
necessary to enforce them;
xvi
-------
(PART 1) (PART II) r"
/FACILITIES / / / / APPLICATION FOR / | STATE CERTIFICATION
PLANNING f / II GRANT / 1 EPA AWARD OF GRANT
"\
INITIAL
OPERATION
X
<
-PREPLANNING
CONFERENCE
-WQM PLANS
-PROJECT NEED
-EXISTING CONDITIONS
(FLOWS, I/I)
-FUTURE CONDITIONS
(POPULATION, FLOWS)
-EVALUATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
-ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION
-FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
-PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-PLAN SELECTION
-INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COMMENTS1
-PREDESIGN
CONFERENCE
-DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
-VALUE ENGINEERING
-USER CHARGE SYSTEM
-SEWER USE ORDINANCE
-DRAFT PLAN OF
OPERATION
-LOCAL FUNDS
-STATE REVIEW1
-STATE REVIEW
-EPA ACTION
UNDER NEPA1
-PREAPPLICATION
CONFERENCE
-FACILITIES PLAN
-INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COMMENTS
-ADEQUATE PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
-NOTICE OF ADVANCE
OF ALLOWANCE
-COMPLIANCE WITH
LIMITATIONS ON AWARD
-CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
AND SPECIFICATIONS
-PROJECT SCHEDULE
-PROCUREMENT CERTI-
FICATION (PART IV)
-STATE CERTIFICATION
-EPA ACTIONS UNDER
NEPA
-GRANT AWARD
-PRECONSTRUCTION
CONFERENCE
-GRANT ADJUSTMENT
AND PAYMENT
-CONSTRUCTION
MONITORING
-CHANGE ORDERS
-ONSITE OBSERVATION
-FINAL PLAN OF
OPERATION
-IMPLEMENTATION Of
USER CHARGE SYSTEM
SEWER USE ORDINANCE
PLAN OF OPERATION
-PROJECT PERFORMANCE
APPLICANT
ACTIVITY
STATE/EPA
ACTIVITY
(PART I) - PORTION OF CONSTRUCTION GRANTS 1984
(SECTIONS 6-9)
• THE STATE MAY ADVANCE FUNDS FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN
FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES THAT OTHERWISE BE UNABLE
TO PREPARE A REQUEST FOR A GRANT
1 ITEMS NOT REQUIRED AT THIS TIME BUT STRONGLY ENCOURAGED
Figure 1 Construction Grants Process
-------
o Formulation of State and areawide
water quality management plans
including comprehensive analysis of
the actions necessary to meet the
water quality standards;
o Issuance of permits for all point
source di scharges—industrial ,
municipal, and other facilities—that
release pollutants from pipes, sewers,
or other confined outfalls; and
o Provision for Federal funds
to assist in the construction of
municipal wastewater treatment works.
The reviewing agency will work with
you so that your project satisfies
the requirements of the CWA, its
implementing regulations, and other
applicable Federal and State laws and
Executive Orders.
Grants Program
EPA is authorized under the CWA, as
amended, to provide grant assistance
to municipalities for the building
of wastewater treatment projects.
EPA grant assistance may be up to
75 percent of the allowable costs of
building the project and include an
allowance for facilities planning and
design. After September 30, 1984,
the Federal share will be limited
to a maximum of 55 percent of these
costs unless modified to a lower
percentage rate uniform throughout
the State by the Governor with the
concurrence of the Administrator.
The 55 percent maximum Federal share
may not apply to phased or segmented
projects which have received prior
Step 3 grants. Section 13.5 contains
additional information on funding
limitations for phased or segmented
projects. Innovative and alternative
technology projects may receive an
additional 20 percent Federal share,
up to a maximum of 85 percent before
October 1, 1984, and a maximum of
75 percent thereafter.
Before October 1, 1984, eligible
projects include collection systems,
intercepting sewers, wastewater
treatment facilities (including sludge
management facilities), outfall
sewers, infiltration/inflow (I/I)
rehabilitation, and correction of
combined sewer overflows. After
September 30, 1984, eligible projects
include only intercepting sewers,
wastewater treatment facilities,
outfall sewers and I/I rehabilita-
tion, except that the Governor
of a State may elect to use up
to 20 percent of a State's allotment
for previously eligible projects.
Project development may best be
considered as a three-step process.
(See Figure 1.)
o Step 1 - Facilities planning to
determine the type and extent of
project you should build.
o Step 2 - Project design including
the preparation of construction
drawings, specifications, and other
contract documents.
o Step 3 - Building of the project
for which EPA grant assistance is
awarded.
The construction grants regula-
tions also allow other types of
financial assistance under certain
circumstances. For example:
o Step 2+3 - Available to
municipalities with a population of
25,000 or less and with projects
costing $8 million or less;
o Advance funding - Financial
assistance provided to a small
community that in the judgement
xviii
-------
of the State would otherwise be
unable to prepare a request for a
construction grant; advance funds so
provided are based on an allowance of
costs to prepare a facilities plan and
design the project; the advance will
be subtracted from any subsequent
grant or may be recovered by the State
agency if no grant is made.
After the Federal government
appropriates funds for the grants
program, EPA allots the funds to the
States based on a formula set by law.
Each State, in turn, prepares a list
of all projects to be funded and
ranks the projects in order of
their importance. The resulting
list is called the State project
priority list. Your project must be
sufficiently high on the list and be
within the fundable range for any
given fiscal year in order for you
to obtain a grant.
Your application for grant assistance,
including supporting documents, is
submitted to your State agency.
It reviews the application, and if
the State has sufficient funds, it
certifies your project and sends the
application to EPA. If EPA approves
your application and makes you
a grant offer, after your acceptance,
you may begin the procurement
procedures necessary to build the
project (See Section 16). EPA
must approve or disapprove an applica-
tion certified by a State, with
sufficient delegated authority, within
45 day:; of receipt or the application
is automatically approved (40 CFR
35.2042).
The grant award sets aside (obligates)
funds for your project. You request
payments from EPA during construction
as costs are incurred. Partial
payment of your facilities planning
and design allowance may be requested
immediately after grant award.
Advance payment of building costs is
generally not allowed.
Your Step 3 project costs are subject
to audit by the Federal government;
therefore, you should keep adequate
and accurate records. You should
obtain guidance on eligible and
allowable costs from your project
reviewer before making expenditures.
This will help prevent audit
exceptions and resulting financial
problems.
State Contact and
State Delegation
You should first contact your state
reviewing agency to obtain information
and an application package. Also, if
you have not already done so, request
information as to how to become
listed on the State project priority
list.
In order to eliminate duplicate
reviews of project documents, EPA
is delegating responsibility for
management and administration of the
construction grants program to the
States. Some activities such as
grant awards, payments, final audit
determinations, final resolution of
disputes, and bid protest appeals
remain the responsibility of EPA.
Several other activities may be shared
with the States while EPA retains
responsibility for the final actions.
Most of the direct project activities
of EPA can and are being delegated
to the States. The extent of
delegation varies from State to State
and you should check with your project
reviewer to determine how this may
effect you. Figure 2 identifies
materials to be submitted to the
State.
xix
-------
Action
A. Request advance (optional)
B. Request environmental scoping (optional)
C. Facilities Plan
-Existing environment (no-action alternative)
-Effluent requirements
-I/I analysis (if applicable)
-Alternative evaluation
-Open space and recreation evaluation
-Environmental evaluation
-Public participation
-Meet requirements of all other laws
-CSO need and benefits (if applicable)
-Selected alternative
-Complete waste treatment system
-Applicant's financial (etc) capability
-Consistency with WQM plan
D. Project Design
-Value engineering
-User charge system
-Sewer use ordinance
-Plan of operation
-O&M Manual
-Intermunicipal services agreements
E. Intergovernmental Review Under E.O. 12372
-Compliance with limitations on award
F. Final design and specifications and the project
schedule
G. Grant application (D through G)
H. State certification
I. State preliminary environmental assessment
State submit grant application package
(D through K)
-Procurement
-Project changes
-Project performance
-Notice of building completion and final
inspection
Regulation*
35.2025(b)
35.2113, 35.2030(c)
40 CFR 6.507
35.2030(b)(2)
35.2030(b)(4)
35.2030(b)(3)
35.2030(b)(5)
35.2030(b)(6);
40 CFR Part 6
40 CFR 6.504, 35.2040
30.405
35.2024
35.2030(b) (1) & (8)
35.2030(b)(l)
35.2104(b)
35.2102
35.2114
35.2140
35.2130
35.2106
35.2206
35.2107
40 CFR Part 29
35.2100
35.2040
35.2040
35.2042
40 CFR 6.507
35.2042
40 CFR Part 33
35.2204
35.2218
35.2216
Submit to
State EPA
X
X X
*Regulations are from 40 CFR Part 35 unless otherwise indicated.
Figure 2 Major Activities in the Construction Grants Program
xx
-------
Project Management
The single most important task of a
municipal official with regard to a
wastewater project is to manage the
project to ensure its timely and
economical completion. This entails
bringing people together to select the
most appropriate technology, making
financial arrangements to pay the
local share, obtaining a Federal and
possibly a State grant or loan to. help
pay the costs, managing the cash flow
of all funds, and moving the project
from development to completion
with a minimum of delay.
Organizing the Project Team
To make a project run as smoothly as
possible, you will need a project
team. The team should consist of:
o Municipal project manager
o Architect/Engineer/Construction
Manager
o Accountant
o Financial Advisor
o Attorney
o Construction contractor
o Treatment plant operator
o Municipal Project Manager
The municipal project manager oversees
all activities necessary to keep
the project moving. The manager's
primary responsibility is to maintain
control over the progress of the
project and ensure that everyone is
doing his job on time. Ideally, the
municipal project manager is a
full-time municipal employee with
experience in dealing with regulatory
agencies and Federal grants.
The municipal project manager will
need to keep excellent records,
logs, and a follow-up system to ensure
that nothing is overlooked. The
manager should keep project reviewers
informed of progress and forewarn them
of decisions they will have to make in
the near future. If the project
reviewer changes, it may be beneficial
to arrange a meeting to bring the new
project reviewer up to date on the
current status of the project.
o Architect/Engineer
The selection of a competent,
experienced architect/engineer (A/E)
is perhaps the most important decision
you will make to ensure that your
project is done correctly, on time,
and satisfies all applicable State and
Federal laws. In most cases, an A/E
will do most of the work in the
planning and design phases of your
project and may provide other services
during building construction and
initial operation of the treatment
works. The A/E's primary responsi-
bilities prior to grant application
are to complete the technical portions
of the facilities plan, prepare and
coordinate the design, prepare the
construction drawings, specifications
and contract documents, estimate
project costs, prepare other reports
which may be necessary, and provide
you with professional engineering
advice.
Other A/E services may include value
engineering (VE) or construction
management. A VE review is required
for projects with estimated building
costs exceeding $10 million. Con-
struction management services, while
optional, may provide specialized
skills to ensure efficient and timely
construction. Firms specializing in
construction management are best hired
as early as possible, preferably
during the planning phase, so that you
can realize the maximum benefit from
xxi
-------
their services. A construction
management firm can help you control
project costs, completion time, and
ensure quality construction. Typical
construction management services
include developing, monitoring, and
updating the project budget and
schedule; reviewing A/E and construc-
tion contractor staffing plans
to insure that adequate manpower will
be used to enable the project to stay
on schedule; providing advice to the
A/E on construction phasing, trade
practices, and the suitability and
availability of various construction
materials; making recommendations
concerning bid packaging to increase
competition; expediting delivery of
equipment which you are purchasing
directly; and inspecting construction
to insure conformance with the
specifications. Despite the A/E's
role, it is your municipality's
project and you are responsible for
proper management of the project.
o Accountant
Since you will be using Federal
funds to build your project and are
therefore subject to Federal audit of
your Step 3 project costs, it is
essential to maintain accurate and
detailed accounts. Incomplete
or inaccurate accounts can lead to the
loss of part of your grant and place
an undue financial burden on your
community. To maintain financial
records, you should use your municipal
accountant or a private accounting
firm. The accountant should keep
separate ledgers for the EPA project,
identify allowable and unallowable
costs, maintain vouchers for all
costs incurred, and employ generally
accepted accounting practices.
The accountant should make an
appointment with the project reviewer
to discuss the type and detail of
records to be maintained. An EPA
publication entitled "Accounting
Guide for Construction Grants"
and Appendix A to the EPA regula-
tions 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart I
will be helpful to your accountant
(Appendix M).
o Financial Advisor
In addition to maintaining financial
records, your community's financial
advisor can help you assess the
financial capability of your residents
and community to afford the project,
suggest alternate funding mechanisms
and help decide how to proceed.
Either the municipal accountant or a
private accounting firm should be
assigned this responsibility.
o Attorney
You will need the assistance of
an attorney in procuring goods
and services (e.g., construction
contractors), completing the applica-
tion, acquiring property and obtaining
easements or rights-of-way. Your
municipal attorney should be able
to provide these services.
o Construction Contractor
The construction contractor's
responsibilities will be defined in
the contract documents accompanying
the construction drawings and
specifications prepared by your
A/E firm. Construction contractors
should be selected through a competi-
tive process and will play an
important role as part of your project
team.
o Treatment Plant Operator
Your treatment plant operator should
be included in your project team at
xx ii
-------
the earliest possible time. The
operator may offer suggestions during
design to ensure efficient operation
and maintenance or make other
operational recommendations such
as staffing or training. During
building your operator will have
an opportunity to observe and note
location of underground structures or
piping which may be of assistance
later should operational problems
occur.
Avoiding Project Delay
The list below briefly describes
common issues which cause project
delays and often result in avoidable
hardships to municipalities. These
issues are each addressed in later
sections of this book but are high-
lighted here as an early warning
to project managers. In addition,
a checklist of major items that
are required at the completion of
facilities planning is included in
Section 9.1.
o Project Responsibility - Although
the EPA grant may represent up
to 85 percent (75 percent after
September 30, 1984) of the allowable
project costs and substantial work may
be performed by your contractors
(e.g., A/E or construction contrac-
tors), you are responsible for the
successful management and completion
of your project including operation,
maintenance and replacement during
the design life of the project,
necessary to meet your National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements. In
addition, it is your responsibility
that your project meet its project
performance standards within 1 year
after the date of initiation of
project operation. Upon completion of
this 1-year performance period, you
must certify to your reviewing agency
whether or not the project is meeting
its performance standards. If you
cannot provide affirmative certifica-
tion, a corrective action report
and schedule must be developed and
submitted to your reviewing agency
(Section 14.6). The section of
the grant application entitled
"Assurances" sets forth your
responsibilities once the grant is
accepted and should be reviewed
carefully.
o Funding Local Share
Your State may provide a State grant
to cover all or some of the non-EPA
share; however, you must raise any
remaining local share of the project
costs.
It may be possible to obtain loans or
loan guarantees from other Federal
agencies. You may also be eligible to
receive grants from other Federal
agencies provided that the laws
administered by these agencies
allow their grant funds to be used as
your local share. In the case of
qualified areas, the Farmers Home
Administration may be able to help you
fund the costs not covered by EPA.
Another possible source of funds could
be the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. For further information
contact your project reviewer.
After you have exhausted all possible
sources of funds, arrange to raise the
remaining local share by, for example,
selling revenue bonds or general
obligation bonds, using revenue
anticipation notes, or using special
funds earmarked for your wastewater
project.
Service Agree-
o Intermunicipal
ments
Many projects involve more than one
municipality, and it is sometimes
xxiii
-------
difficult to come to agreement
with all of the jurisdictions
involved. During your facilities
planning activities you should have
reached agreement with the other
jurisdictions with regard to cost
sharing, operation and maintenance
responsibilities of each party,
enactment of ordinances concerning
sewer use and user charges, and any
other legally binding procedures
necessary for implementing the
project. While you are not required
to execute intermunicipal service
agreements at the completion of
facilities planning, it may be prudent
to do so or at least have a meeting of
the minds as reflected in a written
agreement.
Executed intermunicipal service
agreements are required with the
Step 3 application for grant
assistance or before initiation of
procurement action for building on a
Step 2+3 project unless waived by
the EPA Regional Administrator.
Therefore, you should consider
starting early to negotiate agreements
and, if at all possible, have a
written agreement before beginning
work on the design of your project.
Allowance for Facilities Planning
and Design
One of the most significant changes in
the construction grants program
resulting from the 1981 Amendments is
the elimination of grants for planning
(Step 1) and design (Step 2). In the
future, grant agreements will include
an allowance for facilities planning
and design. Grantees that currently
have a Step 1 or Step 2 grant will be
able to complete the work included in
their scope of work using the present
system of grant payments. However,
the 1981 Amendments prohibit new
grants exclusively for facilities
planning or design. Those activities
will be completed by potential
grantees before they apply for a grant
to build their projects.
Appendix M contains the procedures to
determine the amount of advance of
allowance and of the estimated and
final allowances. The allowance
tables in Appendix M are based on the
percentage of building costs that
have historically been attributable to
facilities planning and design. No
reimbursement for facility planning
or design activities, beyond the
allowance,will be made.
The allowance for a project is a
single sum based on the actual
total allowable building cost.
Allowances are not auditable and the
activities they cover are not subject
to EPA requirements for procurement
under assistance agreements (40 CFR
Part 33). Likewise, it is noted that
EPA's procurement requirements do
not apply to expenses for services
incurred during Step 1 and Step 2.
However,the Congress did not intend to
reduce the opportunities afforded
minority and women's business
enterprises to compete for contracts
associated with construction of
publicly owned treatment works,
therefore, it is EPA policy to
encourage recipients to adopt procure-
ment procedures for all activities of
their construction program that, at a
minimum, include the affirmative Steps
in 40 CFR 33.240. EPA will ask for
information from grant applicants
about the level of minority and
women's business enterprise participa-
tion achieved during planning and
design activities in order to meet our
obligation to report MBE and WBE
participation in the construction
grants program.
xxiv
-------
The device in the law is not a cost
reimbursement, but an allowance.
EPA understands that, in practice,
any savings realized from the allow-
ance will be available to each
community for general public purposes.
The Agency expects that these funds
will be used to defray unreimbursed
expenses associated with building the
facility. Due to the unrestricted
nature of the allowance, however, EPA
will not audit the use of these funds.
One point that must be made clear,
to both consulting engineers and
grantees, is that the allowance for
facilities planning and design should
never be used as a compensation
schedule or a fee schedule. Many
factors, including demonstrated
competence, experience and qualifi-
cations of the firm involved, are
important factors in determining
the appropriate compensation for
engineering services. To reinforce
this fact, the following statement was
included in the final construction
grant regulations. "The allowance
does not reimburse for cost incurred.
Accordingly, the Allowance Tables
shall not be used to determine
the compensation for facilities
planning or design services. The
compensation for facilities planning
or services should be based upon the
nature, scope, and complexity of the
services required by the community."
o Project Cost - Due to the time
interval between completion of
your facilities plan, the design of
your project, and the application
for grant assistance, the estimated
costs of your project and your
local share may have increased. This
is especially true recognizing
the reduced Federal grant share
after October 1, 1984. You should
periodically review and revise the
local cost share of your project
and compare these cost estimates with
your community's current financial
status to ensure that the project is
realistic in terms of the financial
capability of your community.
o Documentation of Costs - The
Step 3 phase of your project is
subject to Federal audit which, in
turn, requires documentation of
project costs in order for these
costs to remain allowable for
grant participation. For example,
administrative costs for municipal
employees must be substantiated by
time sheets. Other costs should be
substantiated by invoices, and in the
case of construction change orders, be
supported by written minutes of
negotiation. While only Step 3 grant
costs are subject to Federal audit,
it is good practice to develop and
maintain an accounting and filing
system which provides an audit
trail from project initiation through
completion.
o Operation, Maintenance and
Replacement Costs - As project costs
are periodically revised and as a plan
of operation is developed, you should
carefully review the operation,
maintenance and replacement cost
estimates. Historically, too many
projects have underestimated these
costs only to find later that they
are higher than anticipated. Your
reviewing agency may be able to
provide you with experiences from
other municipalities that will help
guide you as to the reasonableness of
your costs.
o Environmental Review - The
environmental review is to be
completed before submission of your
application. You should work with
the State and EPA as early as possible
xxv
-------
in the facilities planning process to
determine the appropriateness of a
Categorical Exclusion, the scope
of your Environmental Information
Document, or the necessity for an
Environmental Impact Statement. You
may request in writing that EPA
make a formal determination with
regard to its environmental review
(Section 3.2).
Compliance
The Clean Water Act requires all
publicly owned treatment works to meet
the statutory compliance deadlines
and to achieve the water quality
objectives of the Act, whether or
not you receive Federal funds.
This requirement is reflected
in the National Municipal Policy
(Appendix D).
xxvi
-------
PART J. FACILITIES PLANNING
CHAPTER 1
FACILITIES PLANNING--
PURPOSE AND CONTENT
1.0
AMENDMENTS OF
1981
The Municipal
Wastewater Treat-
ment Construction
Grants Amendments of 1981 (PL 97-117),
highlighted in Appendix L, changed the
Clean Water Act (CWA) with regard to
facilities planning (Step 1) and
design (Step 2). Whi-le separate
grants for facilities planning and
design will no longer be made, an
allowance will be included in the
grant to help defray these expenses.
Small communities may be eligible to
receive an advance of the allowance
for planning and/or design of their
project if their State reviewing
agency determines that they would
otherwise be unable to prepare a
request, i.e., facilities plan
and design, to qualify for grant
assistance. State reviewing agencies
may provide up to 10 percent of their
annual construction grant funding
allotment for advances and will
determine the terms and conditions for
seeking repayment if a construction
grant is not made at some point in the
future.
Those communities that received a
facilities planning or design grant
prior to December 29, 1981, will
complete their project according
to the existing grant agreement and
any special conditions attached to it.
At the completion of these projects,
municipalities will then follow the
current grant application process.
During facilities planning you should
anticipate the provisions of the 1981
amendments that become effective on
October 1, 1984. These provisions are
discussed throughout this book and
include Federal grant share, reserve
capacity and eligible project
categories.
The impact of these provisions will
be reflected in the local share of
project costs to be borne by your
municipality. It requires that
you carefully prepare your project
schedule, periodically revise it as
necessary, and remain in close contact
with your reviewing agency in order to
anticipate the timing of your grant.
Eliminating separate Step 1 and Step 2
grants will allow your community to
move more rapidly in the preparation
of your grant application. This may
result in reduced project costs
due to the impacts of inflation
on construction. In addition, you no
longer have to prepare three separate
applications. These changes are
intended to enable you to build your
project sooner, resulting in earlier
water pollution abatement.
You should note that the technical
requirements for facilities planning
and project design have not changed
significantly under the 1981
amendments (exceptions include
allowable costs for reserve capacity,
I/I analysis, value engineering,
f301(h) waivers). You still will need
I to complete a facilities plan and meet
I other various Federal requirements.
Therefore, you are encouraged to
follow the guidance in this book and
seek review by your reviewing agency
of your facilities plan both during
and after its completion. It is also
recommended that you request review of
your project design at intermediate
points and at completion to ensure
compliance with both State and Federal
-------
requirements. By maintaining contact
with your project reviewer and
ensuring that your project meets all
of the applicable requirements, you
will avoid potential delays at the
time of grant application.
1.1
FACILITIES
PLANNING—
PURPOSE AND
DEFINITION
The facilities
planning process is
the first major step
leading to award
of grant assistance.
Facilities planning consists of those
necessary plans and studies that
directly relate to treatment works
needed to comply with the enforceable
requirements of the Act. Facilities
planning will substantiate the
need for the proposed facilities.
Through a systematic evaluation of
alternatives that are feasible in
light of unique demographic, topo-
graphic, hydrologic and institutional
characteristics of the area, it will
demonstrate, except for innovative and
alternative technology (Section
6.7.4), that the selected alternative
is cost effective (i.e., is the most
economical means of meeting the
applicable effluent, water quality and
public health requirements over the
design life of the facility while
recognizing environmental and other
nonmonetary considerations). The
facilities plan will also demonstrate
that the selected alternative is
implementable from legal, institu-
tional, financial, and management
standpoints. A flow chart (Figure 3)
illustrates the principal stages of
the facilities planning process. Each
major stage corresponds to a chapter
in Part I of this book.
The facilities plan is your record of
why the selected treatment system best
meets your needs. The selection of
the best wastewater and sludge
management alternative is the most
important outcome of the facilities
planning process. The plan, there-
fore, should present a clear picture
of how this decision was reached and
also enable your project reviewer to
assure compliance with applicable
regulations.
1.2
CONTENTS OF
FACILITIES PLAN
Include the
following in your
facilities plan:
o A description of both the
proposed treatment works and the
complete waste treatment system of
which it is a part (Section 5.2 and
Section 8);
o A description of the Best
Practicable Wastewater Treatment
Technology (BPWTT) (Section 6.7);
o A cost-effectiveness analysis of
the feasible conventional, innovative
and alternative wastewater treatment
works, processes and techniques
capable of meeting the applicable
effluent, water quality and public
health requirements over the design
life of the facility while recognizing
environmental and other nonmonetary
considerations. The monetary costs to
be considered must include the present
worth or equivalent annual value of
all capital costs and operation and
maintenance costs. The population
forecasting in the facilities plan
analysis shall be consistent with
the current Needs Survey. A cost-
effectiveness analysis must include:
- An evaluation of alternative flow
reduction methods (Section
5.5.3);
-------
FACILITIES PLAN
PURPOSE AND
CONTENT
PREPLANNING
3-8.
PREPARATION OF
FACILITIES PLAN
(SEE FIGURE 4)
9.
REVIEW OF
FACILITIES PLAN
STATE/EPA ACTIVITY
APPLICANT ACTIVITY
PREPLANNING
CONFERENCE
SPECIAL TOPICS
GENERIC PLANS
PLAN OF STUDY
LOCAL FUNDS
3. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
-PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PROCEDURES
-ENVIRONMENTAL
DESCRIPTION AND
ANALYSIS
4. WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
5. EXISTING AND FUTURE
CONDITIONS
-POPULATION, FLOWS, LAND USE
6.DEVELOPMENT AND
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
7. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
-COST-EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS
8. DESCRIPTION OF
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
-INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COMMENTS1
-STATE REVIEW AND
CERTIFICATION1
-EPA ACTIONS UNDER
NEPA1
-FmHA COMMENTS
(WHERE APPLICABLE) 1
COORDINATED ACTIVITY
CHAPTER NUMBER
1 ITEMS NOT REQUIRED AT THIS TIME
BUT STRONGLY ENCOURAGED
Figure 3 Procedural Flow Chart for Facilities Planning for Wastewater Treatment
and Sludge Management
-------
- A description of the relationship
between the capacity of alterna-
tives and the needs to be served,
including capacity for future
growth expected after the treat-
ment works becomes operational
(Section 5.5.2);
- An evaluation of improved
effluent quality attainable by
upgrading the operation and
maintenance and efficiency of
existing facilities as an
alternative or supplement to
building of new facilities
(Section 6.1);
- An evaluation of the alternative
methods for the reuse or ultimate
disposal of treated wastewater
and sludge material resulting
from the treatment process
(Section 6.7.1, 6.7.2);
- Consideration of systems with
revenue generating applications
(Section 6.7);
- An evaluation of opportunities to
reduce use of or recover energy
(Section 6.7);
- Cost information on total capital
costs, and annual operation and
maintenance costs, as well as
estimated annual or monthly costs
to residential and industrial
users (Section 7.1); and
- For small communities, considera-
tion of appropriate technologies
(Section 7.3.1).
o A demonstration of the non-
existence or possible existence of
excessive infiltration/inflow in an
existing sewer system (Section 5.4);
o An analysis of the potential
open space and recreation oppor-
tunities associated with the project
(Section 7.9);
o An adequate evaluation of the
environmental impacts of alternatives
(Section 7.5);
o An evaluation of the water
supply implications of the project
(Section 3.2.10);
o For the selected alternative, a
concise description at an appropriate
level of detail of at least the
following:
Relevant design
(Section 8.1);
parameters
- Estimated capital construction
and operation and maintenance
costs (identifying the Federal,
State, and local shares) and a
description of the manner
in which the local costs will be
financed (Section 8.2);
- Estimated cost of future
expansion and long-term needs for
reconstruction of facilities
following their useful life
(Section 7.4);
- Cost impacts on wastewater system
users (Section 7.3); and
- Institutional and management
arrangements necessary for
successful implementation
(Section 7.8, 8.5.1).
Other issues which you must address
and which should be included in your
facilities plan include:
o A description of a municipal
pretreatment program if applicable
(Section 8.5.4);
-------
o A demonstration that the selected
alternative is consistent with any
applicable approved water quality
management (WQM) plan (Section 4.0);
o A demonstration that the
municipality has the legal, institu-
tional, managerial and financial
capability to ensure adequate
construction and operation and
maintenance of the treatment works
throughout the system's service
area including the ability to comply
with the regulations (40 CFR 30.301
and 30.600-2); this latter section of
the regulations not only addresses
financial and management capabilities
but includes compliance with the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, equal employment
opportunity and labor laws, etc.
(Sections 8.5 and 13.2);
o A summary of public participation
in the development of the facilities
plan (Section 7.11).
If any of the above information has
been developed separately from
the facilities plan, it may be
incorporated by reference rather
than duplicated, although documenta-
tion of each item is necessary
in your completed plan.
Normally, facilities planning for the
entire project area is completed
before design or before Step 3 grant
assistance is awarded. There are,
however, circumstances where grant
assistance may be awarded before
review and certification of a
facilities plan by the State agency.
In these cases, grant assistance may
be awarded if: (1) the Regional
Administrator determines that
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements (including the environ-
mental review under 40 CFR Part 6)
have been met; (2) the facilities
planning related to the project has
been substantially completed; (3) the
portion of the facility plan for
which grant assistance is awarded will
not be significantly affected by the
completion of the facilities plan
and will be a component part of the
completed waste treatment system;
and (4) you agree to complete the
facilities plan on a schedule accept-
able to your reviewing agency. The
schedule will be inserted as a special
condition of the grant agreement.
In addition to these four conditions
which are applicable to projects
requesting grant assistance before
completion of facilities planning,
other limitations (Section 13.2) are
imposed if the project is also a
phased or segmented project.
-------
CHAPTER 2
PREPLANNING
2.0
PREPLANNING
CONFERENCE
Chapter 1 discusses
the purpose and
content of
facilities plans as well as the 1981
amendments to the CWA. Preplanning
should precede the preparation of a
facilities plan in order to assure
that costs, schedules and scope of
work performed during facilities
planning are adequate to satisfy
regulatory requirements and are
commensurate with complexity of
the water pollution problems.
Preplanning assistance, including a
preplanning conference with your
reviewing agency, is strongly
encouraged. In some cases, the
recommended conference will be
held after facilities planning has
begun but before it has progressed
substantially.
At the State's or your request, you
may wish to schedule a preplanning
conference at which you, other
municipal officials and possibly
your A/E will meet with the project
reviewer to discuss various elements
of the construction grants program.
If supplemental grant assistance from
the Farmers Home Administration
(Appendix F) is being considered
also, it is recommended that a
representative from that agency be
present at the conference. While a
conference may not be possible for
every project, the project reviewer
will provide you with assistance and
explanations before or soon after
you initiate activities leading up to
grant assistance.
At the conference, requirements for
grant assistance and issues relevant
or unique to your project will be
reviewed and addressed. For example:
o For small communities, an advance
of funds for planning and design
(Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart I) and the use of a simplified
generic facilities plan;
o For sewered communities with
a population of 10,000 or less,
consideration of appropriate low cost
technologies such as facultative
ponds, trickling filters, oxidation
ditches, or overland flow land
treatment; for unsewered portions
of communities of 10,000 or less,
consideration of onsite systems;
and
o Estimated charges to customers
and the impact of those charges in
terms of annual costs per household
(Section 7.3) as well as your
community's financial capability and
arrangements for financing the local
share of project costs (Section 12.7).
In addition, you may request an early
determination of the scope of the
environmental review including
eligibility for Categorical Exclusion,
scope of an Environmental Information
Document (EID), or concurrent
development of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) (Sections 3.2.
13, 9.2.2).
2.1
ELIGIBLE
APPLICANT
A municipality or
State will be
eligible for grant
assistance if it meets the following
requirements at the time of
application:
o Is a public body created under
State law or an Indian tribe or an
authorized tribal organization, having
-------
jurisdiction for the treatment,
transport or disposal of domestic
wastewater in a particular geographic
area;
o Is a designated and approved
management agency authorized in a
WQM plan; and
o Demonstrates the legal authority
and financial capability to build
and manage the resulting treatment
works.
If two or more political jurisdictions
are included in the facilities
planning area, the eventual grant
applicant may be a joint authority
that represents all the jurisdictions
or a designated lead agency. In these
cases, carrying out the approved
facilities plan will be based on
written intermunicipal seryice
agreement between the public bodies.
For projects involving more than one
municipality, participants should meet
to discuss their interrelationships,
resolve differences, and set the
ground rules for working together
before the application process begins.
2.2
PLAN OF STUDY While not required,
it may be very
helpful for you to prepare a plan
of study for your project. A plan
of study can help ensure that you,
your A/E firm and the reviewing
agency have a common understanding
of the scope, schedule and costs of
preparing the facilities plan.
Ideally, the plan of study should be
prepared prior to the preplanning
conference and serve as the basis
for discussion. Suggested items
to be included in the plan of study
include a description of the work
tasks to be performed resulting
in the completion of an approvable
facilities plan, a schedule for
completion of work tasks and outputs,
and an estimate of manhours and costs
to complete work tasks.
2.3
INTERGOVERN-
MENTAL
COORDINATION
At an early stage in
development of your
project, you are
encouraged to obtain
comments that will indicate the degree
of concern other agencies have in
your project. You should review any
comments received to identify
sensitive issues for evaluation in
your facilities plan. In addition,
your State may have established
procedures under EO 12372, which
replace OMB Circular A-95, for
consulting between State and local
officials and Federal agencies
concerning activities under Federal
programs. In this case, certification
that these procedures have been
complied with must accompany your
application. EPA regulations also
specify the implementation of the
Agency's intergovernmental review
responsibilities. (40 CFR Part 29).
2.4
PROCUREMENT OF
SERVICES
Most muni ci pa1i t ies
find it necessary
to procure profes-
sional services (e.g., A/E firm) to
assist them in the preparation of a
facilities plan and project design.
Step 3 grant assistance may include
as an allowable cost, an allowance
for facilities planning and project
design. Because EPA will not
reimburse you for your actual costs,
but rather provides an allowance,
you need not comply with the provi-
sions of EPA's procurement regulations
(40 CFR Part 33) for procuring these
services unless you intend to use the
same firm for engineering services
during building as you use for
-------
planning or design. In addition,
you will need to comply with the
provisions during the building of
the project or certify that your own
procurement system, at a minimum,
satisfies the requirements of the
regulations (40 CFR Part 33).
The procurement of services during the
early stages of your project is solely
your responsibility. EPA suggests
that you give careful consideration to
the procurement procedures you will
use and, lacking your own system,
consider using 40 CFR Part 33. A
discussion of procurement is included
in Chapter 16.
EPA encourages recipients to adopt
procurement procedures for all
activities of their construction
program that include affirmative
steps in order to maximize MBE/WBE
participation (40 CFR 33.240).
EPA will request information from
grant applicants regarding the level
of minority and women's enterprise
participation achieved during planning
and design activities in order to meet
EPA's obligation to report MBE and WBE
participation in the construction
grants program.
CHAPTER 3
FACILITIES PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
3.0
GENERAL
PREPARATION
PROCEDURES
Figure 4 is a
flow chart that
i11ustrates the
preparation of a
facilities plan. The chart relates
Chapters 4 through 8 of this book to
the overall facilities planning
process illustrated by Figure 3 in
Chapter 1. Figure 4 graphically
indicates how public participation
and environmental evaluation are
integrated throughout the development
of the facilities plan.
To reduce duplication in this book,
public participation and environmental
impact considerations are discussed in
the balance of this chapter. It
should be noted, however, that the
environmental discussions represent a
summary of other Federal laws and
policies of EPA, which in the interest
of brevity are not complete descrip-
tions of all of the procedures and
considerations that must be taken into
account. Rather, the descriptions are
intended to alert you to the major
areas of concern as your project is
developed and provide a basis for more
detailed discussions with your project
reviewer for those areas likely to
require a thorough evaluation. In
later chapters reference is made
to the public participation and
environmental issues discussed in this
chapter with the intent that you will
review them as necessary.
Maintaining the interrelationship
among evaluation of alternatives,
environmental evaluation and public
participation will ensure that
issues critical to the identification
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
CONSIDER
PRIOR PUBLIC _
' NOTICE AND
CONSULTATION
3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
WORK OR MEETING AND
PLAN RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY IRS)
PUBLIC
MEETING
AND RS
PUBLIC
-»• MEETING
AND R.S
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
4. WQM PLANS
RELATED TO
FACILITIES
PLANNING
5. DESCRIPTION AND
ANALYSIS OF
EXISTING —
AND FUTURE
CONDITIONS
6. DEVELOPMENT
^ AND SCREENING
OF FEASIBLE
ALTERNATIVES
MID-
-COURSE -
MEETING
7 EVALUATION
^ OF PRINCIPAL
ALTERNATIVES
I COST-EFFECTIVENESS )
8 PLAN SELECTION
PRELIMINARY
^ DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION:
9. REVIEW AND
ADOPTION OF
FACILITIES
PLAN
PRIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
" IMPACT
SCOPING
3 ENVIRONMENTAL
^ DESCRIPTION
AND
ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVES
TO AVOID,
MINIMIZE OR
MITIGATE
IMPACTS
PREPARATION
OF EID OR EIS —
AS APPROPRIATE
COMPLETION
OF EID OR
DRAFT EIS
AS APPROPRIATE
REVISIONS TO
-EID OR DRAFT EIS
AS NECESSARY
LEGEND
3. CHAPTER
Figure 4 General Facilities Plan Preparation Procedures
-------
of the most cost-effective alternative
such as financial and environmental
impacts, treatment processes, siting
of facilities, etc., will be addressed
thoroughly during facilities planning.
Your schedule of work should include a
periodic review of these inter-
relationships with your project
reviewer to ensure that they are
maintained throughout the facilities
planning process.
3.1
PUBLIC Open discussion and
PARTICIPATION citizen involvement
can help you develop
plans that reflect the needs and
values of your community. Informing
the public early about the scope and
nature of the facilities planning and
involving them during development and
evaluation of alternatives can surface
important facts and identify issues
early, so they can be resolved without
unnecessary delay or additional cost.
Even more important, a better, less
costly project may result. The under-
standing gained for the project and
its costs during meetings and by
reading fact sheets can help develop
citizen support for the bonds and the
user charge system needed to fund the
project.
To be able to certify at time of
application for a Step 3 grant that
the public participation required in
connection with State and local
statutes and with the environmental
review process under Part 6 has taken
place, it is most effective to make it
an integral part of your facilities
planning public participation program.
While you are not required to use
EPA's Part 25 public participation
regulations in preparing your
facilities plan because there are no
Federal funds involved, you may wish
to review Part 25 for suggestions for
your program such as:
o Inform local residents near the
start of the facilities planning
process when assessing problems and
developing alternatives;
o Provide your project reviewer
and the public with a brief public
participation work plan. The work
plan describes how public participa-
tion will be conducted, encouraged and
assisted during facilities planning.
It includes staffing plans, a budget,
schedule of activities, points of
consultation and preparation of
responsiveness summaries, consulta-
tion and information distribution
mechanisms, and an identification
of segments of the public to be
encouraged to participate. The work
plan and other information can be made
available through the use of existing
local information channels, if widely
read, such as town bulletin boards or
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;
o Consult with the public when
identifying wastewater problems and
screening alternative solutions,
but before selection of principal
alternatives for detailed evaluation;
o Provide the public with at
least 30 days advance notice of
project meetings, such as town council
or other regularly scheduled meetings;
o Hold a public meeting after
principal alternatives are largely
developed but before the proposed
alternative is selected, and present
preliminary cost information;
o Consider a midcourse review of
your public participation program with
your project reviewer;
10
-------
o Hold at least one public meeting
before adopting the facilities plan.
You should indicate in a public notice
that the recommendations of the
facilities plan, including financial
information, will be discussed.
Specify where the facilities plan
and other pertinent information is
available for public review at least
30 days prior to the meeting;
o Allow the public to make written
and oral statements; a question and
answer session should be provided if
possible. Prepare a complete record
of the meeting and prepare a final
responsiveness summary for inclusion
in the facilities plan;
o Prepare and distribute a
responsiveness summary after each
public meeting. A responsiveness
summary should address significant
public comments, both adverse and
beneficial, and the justification for
rejection or incorporation of the
comments into the plan; and
o Present at the meeting
ummary of the faciliti<
a brief
summary of the facilities plan
including the cost information
developed in Chapter 7.
3.2
ENVIRONMENTAL Under the National
REVIEW PROCESS Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
must be prepared by a Federal agency
where a determination is made that a
proposed action (building a wastewater
treatment works in this case) will
have a significant adverse impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Grant assisted projects are subject
to NEPA and EPA's implementing
regulations (40 CFR Part 6). An
environmental review, required by
Part 6, must be completed before
submission of any Step 2+3 or Step 3
grant application. The potential
applicant should work with the State
and EPA as early as possible in the
facilities planning process to
determine if the project qualifies for
a categorical exclusion from Part 6
requirements, or whether a finding of
no significant impact, or an EIS is
required.
To make this determination, EPA
conducts an environmental review which
you may request take place at any time
from the preplanning stage to award of
grant assistance. In the early
preplanning stages, determination of a
categorical exclusion from substantive
environmental analysis and review,
incorporated into EPA's regulations in
1982, is intended to apply to projects
which are small scale, minor and
routine. Such projects may include
replacement, minor rehabilitation,
minor expansion or minor upgrading of
facilities which should not result in
increasing the overall design capacity
of the treatment works nor the pipe
size of interceptors or collection
sewers. Where a categorical exclusion
is granted by EPA, an environmental
information document (described
below) need not be prepared. State
requirements, however, may still
apply.
The decision to grant a categorical
exclusion is made by EPA based upon
information supplied by you, your
State reviewing agency, and any other
source of information. If you feel
your project meets the criteria for
categorical exclusion, you should
contact your project reviewer for
instructions on how to proceed.
Lacking approval of a categorical
exclusion, you are required to
prepare an environmental information
11
-------
document (EID) as an integral part of
your facilities plan. The EID is used
by you in evaluating the environmental
impacts, both beneficial and adverse,
of alternative wastewater collection,
treatment, and sludge management
systems as well as the selected plan.
In addition, the EID is used by your
State agency in evaluating your
project and by EPA in determining
whether to prepare an EIS or, in
the alternative, a finding of no
significant impact (FNSI).
Where it is necessary for you to
prepare an EID, it is recommended
that you discuss the scope of the EID
with your project reviewer at a
preplanning conference (Section 2.0).
In this way you will be able to reach
agreement on the issues that need to
be addressed and focus your efforts
on them. Assuming that your EID
adequately addresses these issues
and proposes realistic measures
to mitigate adverse impacts, EPA
will generally be able to issue a
FNSI. The public has 30 days to
comment on the FNSI, after which
EPA either finalizes its decision
not to prepare an EIS or makes a
determination to prepare an EIS.
It is in your best interests to (1)
seek a categorical exclusion where
applicable, (2) meet with your project
reviewer to define the scope of the
EID, (3) address and resolve the
significant environmental issues
in the EID in concert with your
public participation program, and
(4) formally request an environmental
review by your State agency and EPA
prior to formal adoption of the
facilities plan. The balance of
this chapter discusses the contents
of an EID, special environmental
topics which, if applicable, must be
addressed in the EID, and the joint
EID/EIS procedures where appropriate
(Section 9.2.2).
3.2.1
ENVIRONMENTAL To facilitate the
INFORMATION environmental review
DOCUMENT process and the
selection of an
environmentally sound project,
integrate your environmental analyses
throughout your facilities plan.
Ideally, a separate chapter within the
facilities plan should summarize
the environmental issues and discuss
measures to minimize adverse impacts.
The EID will present information which
describes:
o The proposed action, including
purpose and need;
o The existing environment in
the planning area as related to
the evaluation of the alternatives
and selection of the proposed
project. The existing environmental
conditions to be described in
the facilities plan are listed in
Section 5.1;
o The future environment without
the project, i.e., the "no action"
alternative and its effects on
future environmental conditions in
the planning area (Section 5.6);
o The development and evaluation of
alternatives as described further in
Chapters 6 and 7. Evaluate impacts
on the environment as beneficial or
adverse, direct or indirect, and
long-term or short-term; and
o The environmental impacts of the
selected alternative as described in
Section 8.4 with special attention to
unavoidable impacts, trade-offs,
commitments of resources, and measures
to mitigate adverse effects;
o Sources of information used
to describe existing and future
12
-------
conditions. Consult with regional,
State and Federal agencies as
appropriate early in the planning
process for assistance in locating
the sources of information.
Environmental resources in your
planning area may be identified
relatively inexpensively by
stereoscopic aerial photographic
analysis, obtaining appropriate maps>
documents, and by:
o Conducting literature searches,
interviews and limited field visits
for familiarization with the area
and identification of areas likely
to contain sensitive resources
(floodplains, wetlands, significant
agricultural lands, endangered
or threatened species habitat,
cultural properties, parks, etc.);
o Using field surveys for positive
identification and verification in
areas directly impacted by the
principal alternatives;
o Conducting intensive original
field research in areas directly
impacted and when necessary to
determine the significance of the
resource, the nature and extent of the
impacts and to develop mitigative
measures.
EPA's decision either to issue a
FNSI or prepare an EIS will be
based on an environmental review that
will include an analysis of the
information you provide in the
facilities plan. In addition, EPA
must comply with procedures of other
environmental laws and executive
orders. Following are special topics
which require you or EPA to consult
with other agencies or which describe
procedures designed to avoid delays
during the preparation and review of
your facilities plan. Adverse impacts
in any of these environmentally
sensitive areas may result in the need
for an EIS and the imposition of
special conditions in your grant
agreement.
An evaluation by your project reviewer
of your responses to issues raised
during public participation and
your integration of environmental
considerations into the facilities
plan is strongly recommended before
initiating project design. For
further assistance in evaluating
environmental impacts, consult
your project reviewer and the EPA
publication "Environmental Assessment
of Construction Grants Projects"
(FRD-5).
3.2.2
HISTORICAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES
The National
Historic Preserva-
tion Act and
Executive Order
11593 require procedures for consulta-
tion and commentary by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation on
EPA grant actions that will affect a
property listed or eligible for
listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. EPA guidance
memorandum of March 27, 1984, for
compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act
should be utilized. This guidance
provides for integration of the
cultural resource review process into
the NEPA review process for the
Construction Grants program. As early
as possible in the planning process,
you should contact your project
reviewer for advise on specific
procedures for initiating consultation
with the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). The SHPO will provide
information about properties listed or
eligible for listing on the National
13
-------
Register of Historic Places and
recommend the appropriate level of
cultural resource survey.
In general, your plan should avoid
direct and indirect impact by the
proposed facilities on identified
properties or potentially sensitive
areas. Any unavoidable direct impact
will require an evaluation of the
identified historic or cultural
property, additional detailed
information about the property, an
evaluation of the potential effect the
project may have on the property
(36 CFR 800.3) and any proposed
measures to minimize the effects. At
a minimum, adequate data on the
property's boundary, integrity
and its significance will be necessary
to determine its eligibility for
listing on the National Register
(36 CFR Part 63).
Cultural resource surveys should be
initiated early in the planning
process and completed as soon as
practical, but before award of
grant assistance.
3.2.3
FLOODPLAINS,
WETLANDS, AND
FLOOD INSURANCE
EPA's Policy
Statement of
Procedures for
Floodplain Manage-
ment and Wetlands Protection (Appendix
A to Part 6) requires EPA to prepare
an assessment for any action under its
programs that will affect a floodplain
or wetland. In addition, States may
also have special requirements for
assessing impacts upon these sensitive
areas. Information is generally
readily available to identify 100-year
floodplains and wetlands greater
than 5 acres, however, the program
requirements are not limited to areas
of that size. Floodplains and
flood hazard areas are shown on maps
prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Wetlands
may be identified by maps available
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) or the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS).
You should develop or modify
alternatives to avoid direct or
indirect impacts on wetlands and
floodplains wherever possible. EPA
will not fund costs for treatment
works capacity for new developments on
environmentally sensitive land, such
as floodplains or wetlands.
If your project will affect wetlands,
floodplains, impact navigable waters
or cause the discharge of dredge or
fill materials, consult with FEMA,
USFWS, and EPA, and contact the COE
to determine whether a permit for
discharge of dredge or fill material
will be needed. If a permit is
necessary, the COE should identify
alternative locations to be evaluated
and which environmental factors should
be addressed.
If the selected alternative proposes
construction or purchase of struc-
turers in a flood hazard area,
all affected communities may be
required to participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program of
the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). FEMA may require you
to obtain and maintain an adequate
flood insurance policy for the
Structurers. You must satisfy these
flood insurance requirements in order
for you to receive Step 3 grant
assistance. Early coordination among
affected communities will help avoid
delays in grant award.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(PL 97-348 enacted October 18, 1982)
14
-------
restricts the award of grants that
will have the effect of encouraging
development within the Coastal Barrier
Resources system. The system is made
up of, for example, barrier islands
and related areas containing few
manmade structures. The areas in the
system are shown On maps available
from your State reviewing agency.
In addition to restricting grant
awards for funding construction of
facilities within the system, the
Act prohibits the award of a grant for
capacity in a treatment plant or
conveyance outside the delineated
areas which would have the effect of
encouraging development in the
delineated areas. However, construc-
tion grant funds may be awarded after
consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, for the replacement or
upgrading, without expansion, of
publicly owned or publicly operated
sewage treatment structures or
facilities, if the projects are either
an essential link in a larger network
or system or are consistent with the
purposes of the Act.
3.2.4
AGRICULTURAL
LANDS
In your facilities
plan, evaluate the
direct and indirect
impacts of your project on significant
agricultural lands. It is EPA
policy and the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (PL 97-98) aim to protect
these lands from irreversible loss as
an environmental or essential food
production resource by locating
facilities on agricultural land only
when necessary to serve existing
residential users (Section 6.5).
Identify in your facilities plan
significant agricultural lands in
the planning area by consulting
with the local office of the Soil
Conservation Service, U.S. Department
| of Agriculture (USDA). Environ-
mentally significant agricultural
lands are defined by EPA and USDA to
include the following important
farmlands:
o Land that has the best combina-
tion of physical and chemical
characteristics for producing food,
feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops, and is also available for these
uses (the land could be cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, forest land,
or other land, but not developed land
or under water). It has the soil
quality, growing season, and moisture
supply needed to economically produce
sustained high yields of crops when
treated and managed according to
acceptable farming methods; or
o Land that is used for the
production of specific high value food
and fiber crops. It has the special
combination of soil quality, location,
growing season, and moisture supply
needed to economically produce
sustained high quality and/or high
yields of a specific crop when treated
and managed according to acceptable
farming methods.
Discuss additional farmlands of State,
local and environmental importance
with your project reviewer. Evaluate
alternatives that will avoid or
minimize adverse impacts on signifi-
cant agricultural lands. Examples of
mitigation measures are described in
Sections 3.2.12, 11.1.7. Interceptors
and collection systems should be
located on. significant agricultural
land only if necessary to eliminate
existing discharges or serve existing
residences.
3.2.5
COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT
Federal
The Coastal Zone
Management Act
requires that all
activities be consistent with
15
-------
approved State coastal zone management
programs to the maximum extent
practicable. If your project is
located in the coastal zone of a State
with an approved coastal management
plan, a consistency certification
will need to be submitted to the
appropriate agency. Consult with the
Office of Coastal Zone Management,
U.S. Department of Commerce or
the appropriate State agency for
details. In developing and evaluating
alternatives insure to the maximum
extent practicable that they are
consistent with any approved State
coastal management programs applicable
to the planning area.
3.2.6
MILD AND
SCENIC RIVERS
To comply with the
Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, EPA will
determine from the Secretary of the
Interior or Agriculture that the
project will not directly and
adversely impact any wild, scenic, or
recreational river area. During
facilities planning identify any
rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers
Inventory or any designated rivers in
the planning area through consultation
with the appropriate State agency and
the National Park Service, Department
of the Interior. Develop and evaluate
project alternatives to avoid or
mitigate adverse impacts on these
rivers.
3.2.7
FISH AND
WILDLIFE
PROTECTION
The Fish and
Wildlife Coordina-
tion Act requires
that actions that
will control or modify any natural
streams or other body of water
be undertaken so as to protect
fish and wildlife resources and their
habitats. During facilities planning
consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and appropriate State agency
to find ways to prevent or lessen
adverse impacts your project could
have on fish, wildlife or their
habitats.
Wastewater treatment facilities can
attract birds that pose potential
birdstrike hazards at nearby airports.
If locating a wastewater treatment
facility within 10,000 feet of an
airport, you can coordinate the
location with the regional Fish and
Wildlife Service representative, and
either regional Federal Aviation
Administration officials for civilian
airports or nearby military air base
commanders.
328
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
PROTECTION
Under the Endangered
Species Act if a
project affects a
species of plant,
wildlife or its critical habitat that
the Federal government lists as
endangered or threatened, EPA will
consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, or National Marine Fisheries
Service, to identify mitigative
measures. Projects must avoid
disrupting threatened or endangered
species and their habitats, unless an
exemption is granted under the Act.
The facilities plan will suggest
mitigative measures. Discuss with
your project reviewer procedures for
consulting with these agencies during
facilities planning to determine
whether the proposed planning area
includes the habitats of listed
species.
3.2.9
AIR*QUALITY The Clean Air Act
requires all
Federally funded projects to conform
to approved State Air Quality
Implementation Plans (SIP). During
16
-------
facilities planning evaluate the
direct and indirect impacts of
the alternatives on air quality.
Consult with the State and regional
agencies that monitor SIP compliance.
Evaluate alternatives for compliance
with the SIP and include measures
to mitigate adverse impacts, if
applicable.
3.2.10
WATER QUALITY
AND QUANTITY
In your facilities
pi an, evaluate the
capability of each
alternative to meet applicable
water quality criteria. For existing
facilities, discharges to surface
water must meet the conditions in
your National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits
(5.3 and 4.2). Include a copy of
the permit or a list of the NPDES
effluent limitations in the facilities
plan. The impacts of your discharge
on surface drinking water sources
or the potential impacts upon
estuaries or shellfish harvesting
areas should be discussed with the
appropriate State fish and public
health agencies.
Wherever effluent from proposed
facilities will percolate or discharge
into groundwater, include in your
facilities plan information and an
analysis showing the impacts on the
groundwater. Demonstrate in your
plan that the effluent, when mixed
with groundwater used as a public
water supply, will comply with
Federal, State and local environmental
laws including the criteria
established under 41 FR 6190
(February 11, 1976). Show that the
facility to be built over the recharge
zone of a designated sole or principal
source aquifer and its effluent will
not create an immediate or potential
public health hazard.
In your facilities plan provide
for the development of a program to
periodically test water from existing
potable wells in areas using land
application of wastewater (including
onsite treatment) in the project area.
If there are a substantial number of
onsite systems in the project area,
additional monitoring of aquifers may
also be necessary.
A facilities plan should identify and
evaluate special problems and the
potential for erosion and sedimenta-
tion resulting from construction.
Special problems include long grades,
steep slopes and highly erodable
soils. Special construction
techniques that deal with these
problems should be addressed.
For project sites where dewatering
operations .are expected during
construction, consideration should be
given to minimizing adverse effects
from the discharge of silt-laden
waters by means of filtration,
sedimentation basins or similar
construction methods.
You should include provisions in the
facilities plan for supporting local
and State shoreline stabilization
efforts where appropriate.
The facilities plan should also
address the water supply implications
of the project and the indirect
impacts on water quality caused by
stprmwater runoff. Other problems
which may need to be addressed in your
facilities plan include depletion of
groundwater, saltwater intrusion, or
land subsidence.
3.2.11
DIRECT AND
INDIRECT
IMPACTS
Assess in your
facilities plan
both direct
(primary) and
indirect (secondary) environmental
17
-------
impacts of the principal and selected
alternative. Direct impacts are
caused by construction, operation or
maintenance of the treatment works and
may include for example:
o Disruption of traffic, business
or other daily activities during
construction;
o Damage to historical, archaeolog-
ical , cultural or recreational
areas during construction;
o Disturbance of sensitive
ecosystems such as wetlands and
habitats of endangered or threatened
species during construction;
o Damage and pollution of surface
waters due to erosion during
construction;
o Impacts on water quality from
effluent discharge during operation;
o Displacement of households,
businesses, or services; and
o Discharge of pollutants, noise or
visual impacts.
Indirect impacts are caused by
development made possible by the
project and may include for example:
o Changes in the rate, density,
location or type of development,
including residential, commercial or
industrial; changes in the use
of open space or other land;
o Increased air, water, or noise
pollution; increased solid waste
production; or demand for potable
water from the induced changes in
population and land use;
o Damage to sensitive ecosystems
(wetlands, habitats of endangered
species) and environmentally protected
areas (parks, historic and archae-
ological sites) that result from
changes in population and land uses;
and
o Socioeconomic pressures for
expansion of existing facilities
(housing, schools, highways) and
services (police, fire, medical
emergency) resulting from induced
changes in land use and population.
The environmental analysis should
give special attention to indirect
impacts to determine whether they
will violate Federal, State or local
laws.
3.2.12
MITIGATING
ADVERSE
IMPACTS
Earlier sections
have discussed
real or potential
adverse environ-
mental impacts. Wherever possible,
avoid or minimize adverse impacts.
Where adverse environmental impacts
are unavoidable, discuss methods, both
structural and nonstructural, to
mitigate them. Such actions may
include:
Structural:
o Changes in design, size or
location of facilities;
o Rerouting of interceptors to
avoid sensitive areas;
o Staging or orderly extension of
sewer service;
o Screening for noise, aesthetic,
and historic purposes;
o Appropriate architectural
treatment of publicly visible
structures;
18
-------
o Systems for odor or aerosol
control;
o Cultural resource recovery
including artifacts or important
data.
Nonstructural:
o Development and enforcement of
sewer use regulations;
o Protection of environmentally
sensitive areas by local ordinance;
o Modification of zoning
ordinances, land use or development
plans;
o Stormwater runoff control
ordinances; and
o Water conservation programs to
reduce wastewater flows.
Costs to mitigate the direct, adverse
physical impacts resulting from the
building of the treatment works
are allowable for grant funding.
Mitigative measures should be reason-
able in cost and duration and should
relate to the resource affected.
Mitigation of indirect effects is
best accomplished by nonstructural
measures. Although you may select
structural or nonstructural measures
to mitigate indirect impacts, they are
not grant eligible.
Grant assistance will not be
awarded until your facilities plan
provides for mitigation of adverse
effects. However, a Step 2+3 or Steps
grant may contain a grant condition
requiring implementation of ineligible
mitigation activities.
3.2.13
DETERMINING NEED
FOR AN EIS
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 (Section 9.2.2). EPA must
prepare an EIS when any of the
following conditions exist.
o The treatment works (including
the sludge management system) will
induce significant changes in
industrial, commercial, agricultural
or residential land use concentrations
or distributions. Factors that should
be considered in determining if these
changes are significant include:
(1) vacant land subject to increased
development pressure as a result of
the treatment works; (2) population
increases; (3) accelerated rate of
change in population or population
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 availability or demand
for energy.
o The treatment works, including
the collection system, will have
significant adverse direct or indirect
effects on wetlands or any major part
of the treatment works will be located
on wetlands.
o The treatment works, including
the collection system, will have
significant adverse direct or indirect
effects on a species identified on the
Department of Interior's or a State's
threatened and endangered species list
or their critical habitats.
o The treatment works, will cause
direct or induced changes that
significantly: (1) displace popula-
tion; (2) alter the character of
19
-------
an existing residential area;
(3) adversely affect a floodplain or
wetland; or (4) adversely affect
significant amounts of important
farmland or agricultural operations on
this land as defined in EPA's policy
to protect environmentally significant
agricultural land.
o The treatment works will have
significant adverse direct or indirect
effects on parklands, public lands,
or areas of recognized scenic,
recreational, archaeological or
historic value.
o The treatment works may have
significant adverse direct or indirect
effects through induced development on
local ambient air quality or noise
levels, surface or groundwater
quantity or quality, or fish or
wildlife and their natural habitats.
o The treated effluent will
continue being discharged into a
body of water for which the present
classification is too low to protect
present or recent uses and for which
the effluent will not be of sufficient
quality or quantity to meet the
standards of these uses.
o The treated effluent will have a
significant adverse impact on existing
or potential sources of groundwater
supply.
If an EIS appears to be necessary,
based in part on review of your
facilities plan, the applicable WQM
plan, and public comments, you should
discuss the possible joint preparation
of an EIS with an EID (piggybacking)
with your project reviewer.
A piggyback EIS/EID saves considerable
time because the EIS is prepared
concurrent with, rather than
subsequent to, the facilities plan.
The consultant preparing the EIS can
have no financial nor other interest
in the outcome of the project.
If EPA determines that
i s needed, an
partici pation
desirable.
expanded
program
an EIS
public
may be
20
-------
CHAPTER 4
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
RELATED TO FACILITIES PLANNING
4.0
WATER QUALITY Sections 106,
MANAGEMENT (WQM) 205(j), 208, and 303
PLANS of the Clean Water
Act (CWA or Act) are
consolidated into an integrated water
quality management (WQM) planning
process. Through this process State
and sub-State areawide agencies
conduct broad-based WQM planning
activities, such as developing waste-
load allocations, setting water
quality standards, or conducting
nonpoint studies, designed to achieve
the water quality goals of the Act.
WQM activities are described in a
State's WQM plan and annual work
program. A water quality based
approach will allow States to focus
on their priority water areas and,
when necessary, provide adequate
protection beyond that achieved
through technology-based control.
If technology-based controls are
inadequate to protect desired uses,
the water quality standards are the
basis for determining: (1) best
management practices (BMPs) needed to
control nonpoint sources and/or (2)
the need for more stringent treatment
to control point sources.
Key outputs of the WQM process which
affect facilities planning include:
the WQM plan, development of nonpoint
source control programs, the State
priority system, the problem
assessment and the State's water
quality assessment report (305(b))
(Section 4.3). Once completed and
approved, the State WQM plan becomes
the foundation for other water
pollution control activities. The
State, or the agency to which the
State has delegated WQM planning
functions, will review each facilities
plan in its area for consistency with
the approved WQM plan. After a waste
treatment management agency has been
designated in a WQM plan and the plan
has been approved, construction grants
funds may be awarded only to those
designated agencies and for projects
that are consistent with an approved
WQM plan.
Facilities planning is based on
the wasteload allocations, delineation
of planning areas, and population
projections in the current NEEDS
study. If this information is not
available in an approved WQM plan,
the reviewing agency may only approve
grant assistance if the State or
areawide WQM agency's current year
work program does not address the
required information or the project is
necessary to achieve the water quality
goals of the Act. Facilities plans
which are being prepared at the time
of WQM plan approval should continue
unless the WQM plan clearly justifies
a change in the required treatment
levels based on lower costs or
significant environmental impacts.
4.1
STATE PRIORITY The State's priority
SYSTEM AND system will result
PROJECT PRIORITY in the State's
LIST project priority
list, from which
projects are selected and certified by
the State for EPA grant funding.
The regulations require that the
priority system at least include
criteria for ranking projects based on
the impairment of classified uses
resulting from existing municipal
discharges and the extent of surface
or groundwater use restoration or
public health improvement resulting
21
-------
from the reduction in municipal
pollution. The State may also include
other criteria in its priority system
for ranking projects such as the need
to complete and make operational
earlier grant assisted phases or
segments (Section 13.5), or innovative
or alternative technology projects
(Sections 6.7.2 and 6.7.3).
4.2
WASTELOAD
ALLOCATION/NPDES
PERMIT
The minimum level of
wastewater treatment
that you must
provide for your
project to be eligible for EPA grant
assistance is secondary treatment
(exceptions may be granted under
certain conditions for marine
discharges). A technical definition
of secondary treatment is given in
EPA's regulations (40 CFR Part 133).
Under other sections of the CWA,
States are required to establish
water quality standards based on the
designated uses of the receiving
bodies of water. To meet these
standards, States next select criteria
for each of the pollutants to be
discharged into the water bodies. The
criteria are then used to determine
the amount of each pollutant that a
point source (e.g., outfall pipe
from a sewage treatment plant) may
discharge. The concentrations
of the pollutants allowed to be
discharged are determined through a
wasteload allocation procedure that
translates criteria into effluent
limitations normally included in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permits. The
wasteload allocation is the water
quality analysis used to determine the
level of treatment required by a
specific project and is translated
into an effluent limitation, i.e., the
concentration of specific pollutants
that are permitted in the treated
wastewater as it is discharged from
the treatment plant.
Each point source of pollution, be it
municipal or industrial, is required
to have a NPDES permit (most States
are authorized to issue the permits in
which case the SPDES abbreviation is
sometimes used). The discharge permit
will include the effluent limitations,
based on the wasteload allocation, as
described above.
While secondary treatment is generally
the minimum level required for EPA
grant assistance, the designated water
uses and the resulting water quality
standards may require a higher level,
called advanced treatment (AT) for a
particular point source discharge. It
is the State's responsibility to
establish the designated water uses,
water quality standards, criteria and
wasteload allocations. In some areas,
primarily urbanized, a local water
quality management planning agency may
make these determinations or provide
assistance to the State in its
determination.
Because the NPDES permit limits
determine the level of treatment
and consequently the cost of your
project, it is of utmost importance
that you receive a draft permit or
other document from your State to
establish the treatment levels needed.
Recognize, however, that the wasteload
allocation and individual treatment
plant discharge limits may be
different for different bodies of
water and even within segments of the
same river. In addition, be aware
that if the permit limits for your
existing site require advanced
treatment, your project may be subject
to additional review under the
Agency's Advanced Treatment Policy
(Section 9.2.1). (See Appendix A).
22
-------
4.3
BIENNIAL WATER
QUALITY REPORT
describing the
and the status
Your State's
biennial report
(305 b) to Congress,
quality of its waters
of its water quality
program, may contain information which
will be very helpful to you during the
preparation of your facilities plan.
In preparing this report your State
may describe the water quality
benefits resulting from the construc-
tion grants program such as pollutant
reduction and preservation or
enhancement of designated uses.
Documentation of these benefits may be
based in part on "before and after"
water quality studies. The "before"
study may be conducted before your
project is operational as a part of
the wasteload allocation study
while the "after" study may be done
after your project is operating.
Analysis of the physical, chemical and
biological water data from the studies
can be used to verify previous model
predictions, define water quality
improvements resulting from your
project, and assist in the planning
and design of future projects.
Appendix C contains technical guidance
concerning "before and after" studies.
4.4
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
Programs 40 CFR
be required to
assurance program
In accordance with
EPA General Regula-
tions for Assistance
Part 30, you may
prepare a quality
as specified in the
regulation (40 CFR 30.302). You must
develop a quality assurance program
only if the conditions of your grant
specifically requires you to collect
environmentally related data. If a
quality assurance program is required,
you must submit a schedule for
developing a quality assurance program
within 30 days of assistance award.
You must not begin field or laboratory
work until the award official has
approved your project plan.
23
-------
CHAPTER 5
EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
5.0
PROJECT NEED AND
PLANNING AREA
IDENTIFICATION
were
The wastewater
treatment needs and
facilities planning
area for your
identified during
community
the Water Quality Management (WQM)
planning process based in part on
effluent limitations in your National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
system (NPDES) permit (for existing
facilities), applicable groundwater
criteria and State requirements. You
should review this information to
ensure that the planning area is large
enough to take advantage of economies
of scale, efficiencies possible in
regional planning, or decentralized
or individual onsite systems. The
planning area should also be
sufficiently sized 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
impacts can be made.
5.1
EXISTING
ENVIRONMENT
OF THE PLANNING
AREA
for analysis of
determination of
impacts of the
The description
relevant:
The facilities plan
describes existing
environmental
conditions to
provide a basi s
alternatives and a
direct and indirect
proposed project.
should include, if
o Documented cases of public health
problems related directly to water
pollution;
o Documented fish
system failures, well
etc.;
kills, septic
contamination,
o Surface and groundwater hydrology
(quantity, quality and uses);
o Physiography, topography, geology
and soils;
o Precipitation, temperature, and
prevailing winds;
o Terrestrial and aquatic plants,
animals and natural communities;
o Air quality and noise;
o Energy production and
consumption;
o Population and socioeconomic
conditions;
o Land use and development
including percentages of area
devoted to residential, industrial,
commerical, and agricultural
activities;
o Historic and archaeological
properties (cultural resources);
o
and
Public facilities and services;
o Related Federal, State, and other
projects in the planning area.
Clearly identify envi
sensitive features and
avoided or protected.
consult with Federal,
regional agencies and the
in the planning process.
sources of information
description.
ronmentally
areas to be
You should
State, and
public early
Reference
used in the
5.2
EXISTING
WASTEWATER FLOWS
AND TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
The facilities
plan provides an
inventory of
existing wastewater
characteristics and
treatment facilities including
areas served by onsite systems
24
-------
I and their interrelationships. The
inventory indicates conditions
that limit the number of possible
alternatives, the severity of the
pollution problems and should include:
o Major influent characteristics
(particularly toxic pollutants)
and their variability as a basis for
design criteria and pretreatment
needs;
6 The location of industrial and
municipal treatment plants, sludge
management areas and facilities,
pretreatment plants, pumping stations,
and sewer service areas;
o A description of these
facilities, including design
capacities, existing flows,
characteristics of wastes, NPDES
permits, and overload conditions;
o Locations of significantly
developed areas served by onsite or
unconventional wastewater treatment
systems;
o A discussion and analysis of
average, peak, dry and wet weather
flows, including infiltration/inflow
quantities;
o Locations, flow rates, and other
significant characteristics that would
justify need for correction of
bypasses and overflows;
o The extent of any combined (storm
and sanitary) sewer system;
o A description of wastewater
flow-reduction programs in effect; and
o Documentation of needs to justify
projects.
Documentation of existing needs is
particularly important because of the
| elimination of grant eligibility for
reserve capacity beginning October 1,
1984. Existing needs are flows
estimated to exist at time of grant
award as described in an approved
facility plan. Existing needs can
also include anticipated flows from
documented failing onsite systems if
they are to be served now by the
project (Section 6.3).
5.3
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
Identify the
effluent limitations
for all discharges
as contained in NPDES permits (include
identifying numbers) issued to
existing facilities in the planning
area. Effluent limitations are based
on wasteload allocations developed by
the State and will indicate the
level of treatment required for each
facility.
At a minimum, secondary treatment is
required for all municipal point
source discharges to surface waters.
Secondary treatment is defined
generally as 30-day average not to
exceed 30 milligrams per liter (mg/1)
each of biochemical oxygen demand
and suspended solids. An amendment.to
the Clean Water Act (CWA) allows
the use of biological treatment
processes (deemed to be the equivalent
of secondary treatment) such as
oxidation ponds, lagoons, and ditches
and trickling filters, provided the
State certifies that water quality
will not be adversely affected.
EPA is currently reevaluating its
definition of secondary treatment,
based in part on provisions in the
1981 amendments to the CWA and
comments on the proposed revised
regulations. You should contact
your project reviewer to ensure that
you have are using the most recent
regulation.
25
-------
Higher levels of treatment (advanced
treatment) may be required to meet
State standards for water quality
limited waters. It is EPA policy
(Appendix A) that projects with
incremental costs, for the advanced
treatment portion, of over $3 million
will be reviewed by the EPA
Administrator and projects with
incremental costs under $3 million
will be reviewed by EPA regions
or, delegated States. An advanced
treatment (AT) project can be approved
only if the costs attributable to the
more stringent levels of treatment are
supported by a demonstration of
significant improvement in water
quality or mitigation of existing
public health problems.
Give special consideration to land
treatment systems (Section 6.7.2) as
they are capable of providing very
high levels of treatment (equivalent
to or exceeding AT requirements) often
at considerable savings and these
systems qualify for increased grant
funding as alternative technology.
If your project may be subject to an
AT or zero discharge requirement, it
should be discussed with your project
reviewer at the preplanning conference
or as soon as possible thereafter.
For existing treatment plants your
NPDES permits will contain appropriate
effluent limitations. If ne-w
discharge locations are proposed
during facilities planning, the
State or EPA in some cases, will
determine the effluent limitations for
each new discharge (Section 6.0).
5.4
INFILTRATION AND
INFLOW (I/I)
The facilities plan
shall demonstrate
that each sewer
system discharging
into the treatment works is not, and
will not be, subject to excessive
infiltration or inflow.
"Infiltration" is water, other than
wastewater, that enters a sewer system
(including sewer service connections
and foundation drains) from the ground
through such means as defective pipes,
pipe joints, connections or manholes.
"Inflow" is water, other than
wastewater, that enters a sewer system
(including sewer service connections)
from sources such as, but not limited
to, roof leaders, cellar drains, yard
drains, area drains, drains from
springs and swampy areas, manhole
covers, cross connections between
storm sewers and sanitary sewers,
catch basins, cooling towers, storm
waters, surface runoff, street wash
waters or drainage. Excessive I/I is
the quantity of I/I which can be
economically eliminated from a sewer
system as determined in a cost-
effectiveness analysis that compares
the costs for rehabilitation plus
transporting and treating the
remaining I/I to the total cost for
transportation and treatment of all
the I/I.
You may determine the I/I conditions
in the sewer system by analyzing the
preceding year's flow records from
existing treatment plants and pump
stations. For smaller systems where
flow records may not be available, you
should obtain flow data by conducting
flow monitoring at a single point
at the treatment plant during high
groundwater periods and also during
rainstorms. Where there is a
likelihood of excessive I/I in a
portion of the collection system, it
is desirable to monitor that portion
separately.
No further I/I analysis will be
required if domestic wastewater plus
nonexcessive infiltration does not
exceed 120 gallons per capita per
day (gpcd) during periods of high
groundwater, and if the total daily
26
-------
flow during a storm does not exceed
275 gpcd, and there are no operational
problems, such as surcharges, bypasses
or poor treatment performance,
resulting from hydraulic overloading
of the treatment works during storm
events.
The flow rate of 120 gpcd for infil-
tration analysis contains two flow
components: 70 gpcd of domestic
wastewater base flow and 50 gpcd of
nonexcessive infiltration. This is a
national average based on the results
of a needs survey of some 270 Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area cities;
Where the flow rate (domestic base
flow plus infiltration based on
the highest 7- to 14-day average) does
not significantly exceed 120 gpcd (say
in the range of 130 gpcd), you may
request approval by the Regional
Administrator to proceed with treat-
ment works design without further
analysis. The Federal funding of the
treatment plant, however, will be
limited to the cost of a project with
a capacity of 120 gpcd and you must
demonstrate that the proposed project
is cost-effective and sufficient local
funds are available to build and
operate the entire treatment works.
When infiltration significantly
exceeds 120 gpcd, perform further
evaluations of the sewer system to
determine the quantity of excessive
I/I through a cost-effectiveness
analysis. Under this second
option, you will propose a sewer
rehabilitation program to eliminate
the portion of I/I that is excessive
and size your treatment plant
accordingly. A limited amount of
grant assisted sewer rehabilitation
may be undertaken on specific portions
of the sewer system where shown to be
cost effective. In addition, you will
certify the I/I conditions in the
sewer system at the end of the first
year of operations of a new treatment
facility (Section 14.6). If the sewer
rehabilitation program fails to remove
the quantity of I/I as specified, you
must prepare and resubmit a corrective
program to the reviewing agency.
If infiltration or inflow is possibly
excessive as defined above and further
study indicates that it is not cost-
effective to implement a sewer
rehabilitation program, Federal
funding will be for the cost-effective
capacity even if it exceeds 120 gpcd.
If further study of the sewer system
is not required by the Regional
Administrator, the design flows are
incorporated into the facilities plan
and should include:
o Total treatment plant flow,
infiltration, and inflow;
o Occurrence of rain events and
level of groundwater during I/I
study;
o Nonexcessive I/I to be included
in the design capacity of the proposed
treatment works; and
o A commitment to develop an
effective sewer system operation and
maintenance program (Section 5.4.1).
If the analysis under the second
option is conducted, results of
the I/I study are incorporated
into the facilities plan and should
include:
o Total treatment plant flow,
infiltration and inflow;
o Estimated I/I from service
laterals, collector lines, and
interceptors;
27
-------
o Estimated cost for transport and
treatment of total design flow,
including I/I;
o Estimated rehabilitation costs to
eliminate I/I;
o Occurrence of rain events and
level of groundwater during I/I study;
o Excessive I/I;
o Nonexcessive I/I to be included
in the design capacity of the proposed
treatment works;
o A proposed sewer system
rehabilitation program for I/I cost-
effective to remove; and
o A commitment to develop an
effective sewer system operation and
maintenance program (Section 5.4.1).
You may perform sewer system
evaluation studies and minor sewer
rehabilitation prior to grant award
(considered a preaward cost) when
approved in advance by your reviewing
agency provided the work is not a
part of your municipality's normal
O&M responsibilities. Where
structural repairs are required for
a large portion of the sewer system,
those repairs will be made after
grant award.
Although the regulatory requirements
reflected in existing guidance on I/I
analysis are no longer current, the
technical information contained in
MCD-19 may be useful in your analysis
(see Appendix B of this book).
5.4.1
SEWER USE
ORDINANCE AND
SEWER
MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM
If a sewer
rehabilitation
program is prepared,
it should address
corrective actions
to be included as
part of a sewer use ordinance (Section
12.3). The portion of the ordinance
addressing I/I should contain a
realistic program for: removal of
excessive infiltration from sewer
service laterals; removal of illegal
connections from the sewer system
(e.g., downspouts, storm or area
drains); specify acceptable levels
of infiltration for new sewers;
and provide design details for new
connections. The enactment and
enforcement of the sewer use ordinance
will help prevent overloading of the
completed treatment works.
The sewer rehabilitation program
should also contain a commitment to
develop a comprehensive and effective
sewer maintenance program. The
maintenance program may be developed
as part of your Step 3 grant
activities (Section 8.5.3).
5.5
FUTURE
CONDITIONS
The planning period
for wastewater
proj ects shall
be 20 years beyond the date the
facilities are scheduled to begin
operation. The 1981 amendments to the
CWA, however, limit grant assistance
for reserve capacity as follows:
(a) If EPA awarded a Step 3 grant for
an interceptor segment before December
29, 1981, additional grants may be
awarded for the remaining interceptor
segments included in the facilities
plan with reserve capacity, as
planned, up to 40 years;
(b) Except as provided in (a), if EPA
awards a grant for a Step 3 or Step 3
segment of a primary, secondary or AT
facility or its interceptors included
in a facilities plan before October 1,
1984, the grant for that Step 3
28
-------
project or Step 3 segment, and any
remaining segments, may include
20 years reserve capacity;
(c) Except as provided in (b), after
September 30, 1984, no grant shall be
made to provide reserve capacity.
Grants shall be based on capacity
necessary to serve existing needs
(residential, commercial, industrial
and other users) as determined on the
date of Step 3 grant approval. Grants
awarded after September 30, 1990,
shall be limited to the existing needs
on September 30, 1990.
All incremental costs for reserve
capacity beyond that provided in (a)
through (c) above will be paid at
other than Federal expense.
While a 20 year planning period does
not require that your project include
capacity for a 20 year period, it does
require that the project be the most
cost-effective when compared to
alternatives with capacity for a
20 year period.
The most cost-effective plan may
provide for staging construction of
operable parts of the facilities to
meet changing conditions during the
planning period. Your plan should
consider not only constructing a
facility now which satisfies your
needs for the next 20 years recog-
nizing the reserve capacity grant
limitations, but also consider
if it is more cost effective to
construct a facility to satisfy your
needs for 10 or 15 years and later
construct additional facilities if
and when they are required. The
objective of evaluating staging of
construction (Section 6.10) is to
ensure that oversized facilities are
not constructed thereby avoiding
a potential financial burden or
possible adverse environmental
effects resulting from the project,
particularly if expected growth
fails to occur.
5.5.1
POPULATION AND
LAND USE
PROJECTIONS
Wastewater treatment
needs and design
capacities for your
facilities planning
area will be determined by land
use patterns, economic growth, and
the resulting increase in population.
The population estimates in your
facilities planning area over the
next 20 years are to be consistent
with the projection for the State used
in EPA's current "Needs Survey" (most
current 1982) which estimates the
present value of costs for construc-
tion of publicly owned wastewater
treatment works to the year 2000.
The survey also projects statewide
populations based on information from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Department of Commerce. The state-
wide population forecast is then
disaggregated into smaller political
subdivisions such as counties,
municipalities, townships, etc. It is
the latter figures that are to be
used, if available, in your facilities
plan. States may, however, decrease
existing population projections if it
is done on a consistent statewide
basis.
Most States have completed population
projections. If projections are not
available, you may: prepare your
projection by calculating your average
yearly growth rate from 1970 to the
present and use that growth rate to
obtain a 20 year projection; or
compute the growth rate of a larger
area (township or county for example)
where future population projections
are available and assume your
community will grow at the same rate.
29
-------
If in doubt as to what population
projection to use for your planning
area, consult your project reviewer.
As you prepare your facilities plan
and develop alternative wastewater
collection and treatment systems,
carefully consider land use plans
which have been prepared for the area.
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 prepared
for all or part of the planning
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
(e.g., significant agricultural lands,
parks and historic or archaeological
sites), are not to be included when
estimating future development patterns
and densities.
Facilities planning offers an ideal
opportunity to review existing
land use plans or initiate land
use planning. The two processes
complement one another. Adherence to
carefully conceived land use plans,
for example, can reduce the cost of
building and operating a treatment
system by discouraging leapfrog
or sprawl development (reducing
collection system costs) and by
determining realistic limitations to
future growth (reducing treatment
costs). In a similar fashion, the
location, capacity and timing of
treatment system components can
influence the location, size and
growth rate of new development thus
also affecting many other municipal
and private costs.
5.5.2
FORECASTS OF The facilities plan
FLOWS AND relates the size
WASTELOADS and capacity for the
facilities to the
needs in the planning area. In
determining design flow for the
treatment works, consider: existing
base flows; estimated future flows
from residential, commercial, institu-
tional and industrial sources; and
nonexcessive I/I. Existing base flows
equal actual metered flows minus the
excessive I/I.
You should estimate future resi-
dential, commercial, and institutional
flows based on one of the methods
described below. Each method combines
the sources of wastewater flows and
expresses their total contribution in
terms of "residential population
equivalent" or gpcd. Capacity to
accommodate future increases of per
capita flow over time should not
be proposed or approved for grant
funding.
o Method 1 - Base your estimate of
existing average daily flow on
reliable water supply records adjusted
for consumption and other losses, or
on records of wastewater flows for
extended dry periods minus estimated
infiltration. This figure should be
further reduced by industrial users
and limited users. For example,
seasonal populations can be converted
to equivalent full-time residents
using a multiplier of 0.1 to 0.2 for
day use visitors and 0.5 to 0.8 for
seasonal visitors. The resulting
figure (gpcd based on existing sewered
residential population equivalent)
is then multiplied by the future
projected population. This method is
preferred and should be used whenever
possible.
30
-------
o Method 2 - When water supply
or wastewater flow records are
inadequate, you should calculate
future average daily base flow
(ADBF) by multiplying the future
population projection by 60 to
70 gpcd. If you propose a higher gpcd
figure, it must be justified and
include the results of flow reduction
(Section 5.5.3) and I/I (Section 5.4)
analyses.
The treatment works may include
capacity for both existing and future
industrial flows (Section 6.9).
You should contact existing industries
during the planning process to
determine whether existing flows
will increase or decrease and the
characteristics of their discharges.
This determination could be influenced
by considerations such as: industrial
recycling, industrial pretreatment
(required for some industries),
estimated user charges, potential
increased efficiency, and the general
economic situation. In the case
of significant industrial users
(industries which intend to increase
their flows or industries which will
relocate in the area), obtain
letters of intent documenting capacity
needs and characteristics for
existing or projected flows. This
information will be particularly
important to estimate the volume and
characteristics of the sludge produced
and to evaluate alternatives for the
sludge management portion of the
treatment works.
Flow allowances for unknown future
industrial growth should be carefully
evaluated and in general should not
exceed 5 percent (or 10 percent where
population is less than 10,000) of the
design flow before the unknown future
industrial flow is considered or
25 percent of the total industrial
flow (existing plus documented
future). In all cases, unknown future
industrial growth provisions should
conform with WQM plans, land use
plans, and zoning ordinances.
5.5.3
FLOW REDUCTION The facilities plan
will include an
evaluation of alternative flow
reduction measures unless: the
existing ADBF is less than 70 gpcd
or the reviewing agency determines the
area has an effective existing flow
reduction program.
When these conditions are not met, the
facilities plan should consider:
o A public information program to
encourage wastewater reduction;
o Changes in water and sewerage
pricing policies to promote
conservation and flow reduction;
o Installation of water meters and
retrofitting existing homes with
water saving devices by developing a
sewer user charge that is proportional
to actual water usage to further
promote water conservation;
o Changes in local ordinances or
codes that require installation
of water saving devices in new homes
or other buildings.
Your plan should include recommenda-
tions on which flow reduction
techniques can be cost effectively
implemented when the project becomes
operational. It should also include
projections of expected flow reduc-
tions in 10 and 20 years. The
analysis should consider potential
increased costs of: administration, a
public information program, public and
private sector costs for retrofitting
31
-------
existing buildings, and the additional
costs for installing water saving
devices in lieu of conventional
devices. The analysis should also
consider reduced or deferred
construction and operating cost
(including energy) for your water
supply system, water and wastewater
treatment works.
The plan should discuss steps to
implement flow reduction where cost
effective. A public information
program should highlight recommended
flow reduction measures, their costs,
potential savings and costs for
a typical household. A recent
EPA publication, "Flow Reduction:
Methods, Analysis Procedures,
Examples," FRD-15, may be helpful.
5.6
FUTURE The description
ENVIRONMENT of the future
WITHOUT THE conditions developed
PROJECT in the preceding
sections will help
document the need for the project
and will provide a benchmark for
comparison of alternatives (Chapter
6). A description of the future
environment without any project
is termed the "no action" alternative
and is to be evaluated as one of the
options to building your project. The
"no action" alternative provides a
dramatic comparison between "do
nothing" and "build a project" and
will help you and the public more
clearly understand the impacts
(social, environmental, economic,
etc.) of the proposed project. In
many cases, however, the "no action"
option will be appropriate for a
portion of the planning area.
CHAPTER 6
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
OF ALTERNATIVES
6.0
DEVELOPMENT OF The primary
ALTERNATIVES objective of
facilities planning
is to develop and evaluate various
solutions to the water pollution
problem and select the most cost-
effective solution for wastewater and
sludge management to serve the
planning area. Cost-effectiveness
as used in this context means both
monetary and nonmonetary (e.g.,
environmental, social, institutional)
considerations. Therefore, the
development and selection process
seeks to identify the treatment
system which is the most economical
means of meeting applicable water
quality standards and public health
requirements over the design life
of the project recognizing environ-
mental and other nonmonetary factors
and is implementable from legal,
institutional, financial and
management standpoints.
Small communities should consider the
possible use of simplified (generic)
and model plans to help select the
most cost-effective solution. This
should be discussed with your project
reviewer.
In addition, small communities are
required to evaluate appropriate
low-cost technologies (Section 7.3)
even though local codes may restrict
the use of some of these technologies.
This evaluation will enable a
realistic appraisal to be made of
the costs and benefits of such a
restrictive code and may provide
the basis for reevaluating the
32
-------
restriction. One such low cost
technology is upgrading existing
onsite systems in order to correct the
problems.
For larger communities, all feasible
waste management systems are
identified and screened to determine
those principle alternatives that are
capable of meeting Federal, State,
and local criteria. Communities
with existing or proposed advanced
treatment (AT) or zero discharge
requirements must consider AT and
land treatment technologies in their
cost-effectiveness analyses in
addition to other alternatives
involving relocation of the discharge.
Evaluation of principle alternatives
is discussed in Chapter 7.
All communities consider additions to
or replacement of part or all of any
existing facilities. Note, however,
that if the existing facilities
were built with a grant under the
Water Pollution Control Act of 1956,
(PL 84-660) or its amendments, a
second grant during the facilities
design life is not available except
under limited circumstances.
Allowable costs (Section 15.1) should
be discussed with your project
reviewer before completing your
financial capability analysis
(Section 7.3).
6.1
OPTIMUM OPERATION Include in your
OF EXISTING facilities plan an
FACILITIES evaluation of
improved effluent
quality attainable by upgrading the
operation and maintenance (O&M)
of existing facilities as either
an alternative or supplement to
construction of new facilities.
Include an explanation of why improved
effluent quality cannot be obtained
cost-effectively through upgrading if
your facilities plan recommends
complete or partial abandonment of
existing facilities.
An evaluation of existing facilities,
including onsite septic systems, may
reveal that they can function more
efficiently with the addition of new
equipment, operational changes, public
education, or the addition and
training of operating personnel.
Problems with plant and onsite system
operation are usually due to one
or more of the following:
o Inadequacy of the treatment plant
design for the character and amount of
waste treated (including infiltration/
inflow (I/I) and industrial flows);
o Inadequacy of O&M program
including process control method,
laboratory procedures, maintenance
management systems, staffing,
salaries, and replacement funds and
schedules;
o Site-related problems; and
o Outdated or failing equipment.
You should describe the cause, extent,
nature, and location of such problems.
EPA publications "Performance Evalua-
tion and Troubleshooting at Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
(MO-16)," and the Design Manual: "On-
site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems" listed in Appendix B, provide
detailed system evaluation guidance.
Whatever the results of the
evaluation, identifying the possible
optimum operation of existing
facilities will help determine if
additions, expansions or replacements
must be made, and the extent to which
existing facilities can be converted
33
-------
or used in lieu of a new system. In
preparing this evaluation be sure to
consider any improvements expected as
a result of future pretreatment by
industrial contributors, removal of
excessive I/I, or staging of new
capacity.
6.2
REGIONALIZE I ON If the facilities
planning area
includes several communities, a
planning approach that cons-iders
regional management as well as
physical consolidation of existing
systems should be evaluated. This
approach may have been evaluated or
recommended in an approved water
quality management (WQM) plan for
the area and should be followed
(Section 4.0).
Alternatives for a large planning
area may involve various arrangements
for construction, O&M, and management.
For example, several jurisdictions
may form a regional authority to
construct, operate and maintain a
centralized treatment system for the
entire planning area, while each
municipality is responsible for its
own collection system. Another
approach may be where one jurisdiction
serves as the lead agency for
construction and O&M of separate
facilities that serve each of the
jurisdictions.
Regionalization may, but need not,
involve construction of physically
interconnected facilities. Rather,
individual jurisdictions may be
responsible for construction of
municipal facilities and onsite
systems while a regional authority may
be formed to administer one or more
operation and management functions,
such as sludge management.
Regional facilities have various
advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages may include: savings in
personnel, materials and supplies;
more treatment capability per dollar*
higher operator skill levels,* better
performance of treatment plantj
fewer sites and effluent discharge
points. Fewer sites and effluent
discharge points could reduce direct
environmental impacts.
Disadvantages may include: higher
costs due to heavy reliance on
technology; longer design and
construction timej potential for
induced growth and resultant adverse
environmental impacts; depletion of
streamflow; concentrated discharge?
and a need for inter-municipal service
agreements.
When considering regional alternatives
involving construction of new
interceptors or collector sewers to
connect communities in the planning
area, evaluate the environmental
factors discussed in Sections 3.2 and
6.6. The cost for the collection
system portion of a project in a small
community generally represents at
least 50 percent of the total user
cost and can be as high as six times
the cost of the treatment plant alone.
For this reason, the financial
impact of installing new gravity
collection systems or extending
sewers should be carefully evaluated
(Section 7.3).
Executed intermunici pal service
agreements or equivalent documented
commitments (e.g., letters of intent
from significant industrial users)
are to be submitted with a Step 3
application or before initiation of
procurement action for building the
project for Step 2+3 grants (see
Introduction - Managing Your Project;
Section 8.5.1).
34
-------
Regionalization which includes an
unincorporated area is usually
accomplished by any of the following
methods:
o Intermunicipal service agreement
where a "municipality" (i.e., county)
acts on behalf of the unincorporated
area;
o Annexation; or
o Service contracts with individual
users.
6.3*
UNSEWERED AREAS Identify in the
facilities plan
areas which are served by existing
onsite or cluster wastewater disposal
systems, and particularly note those
systems that are causing or are
likely to cause public health problems
or groundwater contamination.
Onsite systems are self-contained
systems that provide both treatment
and disposal of wastewater on or
immediately adjacent to an individual
lot (e.g., septic systems). "Cluster
systems" typically serve a group of
two or more (up to twelve or so) homes
or small commercial establishments.
If one of the alternatives to be
evaluated is a new conventional
collection system (Section 6.4), you
should also evaluate small alternative
wastewater systems (Section 6.7.2).
These systems must be evaluated
for existing unsewered portions of
communities with a population of
10,000 or less. A community can be
considered a group or groups of
homes and small business establish-
ments (with dwelling units in the
majority) having a recognized identity
or name in the area, although
it need not be an incorporated
political jurisdiction.
In justifying the need to provide
sewer service to unsewered areas
you should present the following
information:
o Specific documentation of
the nature and extent of health,
groundwater or discharge problems
associated with existing onsite
systems;
o Pertinent information
physical restrictions to
onsite systems (e.g., soil
tion maps, previous soil
excavation data, percol
results, historical data,
etc.); and
documenting
the use of
classifica-
borings or
ation test
lot sizes,
o Documentation of the type,
condition, age, number and location of
all onsite systems drinking water
wells.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in a
continuing effort, has prepared soils
surveys for more than half of U.S.
counties. When properly used, these
surveys provide wastewater planners
with valuable preliminary general
information on the soils in a planning
area. It is essential, however, that
planners and designers recognize the
limitations on the use of SCS's soils
surveys. Individual survey mapping
units represent areas greater than 2
to 6 acres. As a result, these units
can contain soils which differ from
the major soil types indicated in the
survey. These other unidentified
soils may be better suited for onsite
wastewater treatment systems. Because
of this inherent inexactness, soils
surveys should not be used as a
substitute for site-specific design
investigation. In addition, SCS
limitation ratings (e.g., slight,
moderate, severe), when used in
35
-------
conjunction with septic tank soil
absorption system installations, are
based on a conventional trench or
filter bed design. The soil ratings
do not indicate the suitability of
the soil for modified onsite or
cluster system designs (e.g., mound
system). On this basis, soils survey
limitations should not be used to
categorically rule out all onsite and
cluster system solutions to wastewater
problems.
A community survey which describes and
analyzes the system failures is
recommended and should describe known
or suspected water quality or public
health impacts resulting from the
failures (Appendix R). Use of local
health department or sanitarian
records, citizen complaints, maps,
and aerial surveys will provide
significant data to evaluate the
condition of existing onsite systems.
Detailed community surveys such
as house-to-house gathering of
engineering data may be necessary
to fully evaluate existing onsite
systems. In addition, the survey can
develop actual or typical costs for
rehabilitation, replacement, or
modification of onsite systems.
Where the need to replace onsite
systems has been justified, compare
the costs and environmental impacts
of a conventional collection (Section
6.4) and centralized treatment system
to small alternative wastewater
systems (Section 6.7.2).
6.4
CONVENTIONAL
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
A conventional
collection system is
a collection system
carrying essentially
raw wastewater, consisting generally
of 8-inch-diameter or larger gravity
collector sewers normally with
manholes, force mains, pumping or lift
stations and interceptors leading to a
central treatment plant employing
conventional concepts of treatment and
disposal. Because the Clean Water Act
(CWA or Act) is intended primarily
to correct existing water quality
problems, construction of conventional
sewage collection systems are grant
allowable only where:
o The system is for replacement or
major rehabilitation of an existing
collection system which was not built
with Federal funds awarded on or after
October 18, 1972, and where necessary
to the integrity and performance of
the complete waste treatment system;
or
o The bulk (generally two-thirds)
of the expected flow (flow from
existing plus future residential
users) will be from the resident
population on October 18, 1972 (the
date the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act amendments were enacted);
and
o New development will not occur on
environmentally sensitive areas.
Where a new system is funded, you
must provide assurance that the
existing population will connect
within a reasonable time after project
completion.
The 1981 amendments modified earlier
legislation and discontinue grants
for conventional collection systems
after September 30, 1984, except when
a Governor exercises discretionary
authority (up to 20 percent of the
State's allotment) to approve such
projects for grant assistance.
If a new collection system meets
the criteria above, the following
guideline will be of assistance.
36
-------
Where the population density within
a proposed collection system area
is greater than 6 persons per
acre (two households per acre),
conventional gravity collector sewers
and centralized treatment may be
cost-effective.
Where the population density is less
than 6 persons but 1.7 or more
persons per acre (one household per
2 acres), both conventional and small
alternative wastewater systems should
be carefully evaluated.
Where the population density in an
area is less than 1.7 persons per
acre (one household per 2 acres),
conventional collector sewers
generally are not considered cost-
effective unless a severe pollution or
public health problem exists and
conventional collector sewers are
shown to be clearly more cost-
effective than any alternatives
for these sparsely populated areas
(Section 6.7.2).
6.5*
ALTERNATIVE
CONVEYANCE
SYSTEMS
Alternative convey-
ance systems consist
of wastewater
collection systems
serving individual systems, cluster
systems, and small communities or
sparsely populated areas of larger
communities. Historically, small
communities have been of less than
3,500 population and sparsely
populated areas with a population
density of less than 1.7 persons per
acre (one household per 2 acres).
Alternative conveyance systems are
comprised of small diameter gravity,
pressure, or vacuum sewers conveying
fully or partially treated wastewater.
Small diameter gravity sewers
conveying raw wastewater to cluster
systems are also considered alterna-
tive conveyance systems for individual
systems, except for the onsite portion
of the building sewer (40 CFR Part 35,
Appendix A). Alternative conveyance
systems are exempted from the
collection sewer limitation (i.e.,
two-thirds rule) when planned for
small communities. In addition, these
systems remain eligible for grants
after September 30, 1984.
Under the innovative/alternative
set-asides, their Federal share is up
to 85 percent (75 percent after
September 30, 1984). In addition,
alternative conveyance systems may
receive the 15 percent alternative
cost-effectiveness preference except
when they are privately owned
(Section 6.7.4).
6.6
EVALUATION OF
SEWER ALIGNMENTS
Since the location
and size of
intercepting and
collecting sewers will influence
growth in the planning area, they
should be planned carefully and
evaluated for staging of construction.
You should:
o Not extend interceptors into
environmentally sensitive, areas
unless absolutely necessary to
eliminate existing discharges or serve
existing communities that violate an
enforceable requirement of the CWA;
o Evaluate direct and indirect
impacts of interceptors on environ-
mentally sensitive areas such as
archaeological and historic sites,
floodplains, wetlands, significant
agricultural lands, and undeveloped
lands (less than one household per
2 acres); and
o Identify measures to minimize
adverse impacts on environmentally
37
-------
sensitive areas where no practical
alternative exists.
EPA will not fund portions of
treatment works providing capacity
for new development in environmentally
sensitive areas and may impose
conditions on related grants that
could potentially impact these areas.
Such conditions could include restric-
tions on sewer hookups or special
conditions in National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits to ensure implementation
of mitigating measures. In your
facilities plan consider alternative
routes for interceptors in light of
the above factors.
Limits on the eligibility of
collectors are discussed in
Section 6.4.
6.7
WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES
This section
describes three
classes of waste-
water and sludge
management techniques which must be
evaluated as a part of your facilities
plan. They are:
o Conventional technology - bio-
logical or physical/chemical treatment
with direct discharge to surface
waters; sludge treatment and disposal;
o Alternative technology - specific
treatment techniques for wastewater
and sludge reuse or disposal as
defined by law and the implementing
regulations (Section 6.7.2);
o Innovative technology - a
wastewater or sludge management
process or technique is innovative if
it is not fully proven and provides
for advancement over the state-of-
the-art; modifications to conventional
or alternative technologies meeting
the criteria may qualify them as
innovative (Section 6.7.3).
For each of these three wastewater
management techniques it is necessary
to achieve a specific quality of
effluent in the treatment process
before final disposal or reuse. The
required quality of effluent is called
the best practicable waste treatment
technology (BPWTT) which in turn
will be established by the method of
final effluent disposal or reuse.
For example, in some rivers BPWTT may
be defined as a minimum of secondary
treatment. In other rivers or bodies
of water where it is necessary to
maintain a high level of water
quality, BPWTT may be defined as
AT, i.e., more than just secondary.
In cases where a marine waiver
discharge has been approved, BPWTT may
be defined as something less than
secondary treatment (Section 5.3).
Finally, if an effluent is to be
returned to the groundwater (e.g.,
slow rate irrigation), BPWTT may be
defined as the primary drinking water
standards depending on whether or
not the groundwater is used or can
potentially be used as a potable water
supply.
Therefore, BPWTT is broadly defined
as the cost-effective technology
that can treat wastewater, combined
sewer overflows, and nonexcessive
I/I in publicly owned or individual
wastewater treatment works to meet the
applicable provisions of:
o Part 133 for secondary treatment
and discharge to surface waters;
o Part 125, Subpart 6 for marine
discharge waivers (less than secondary
treatment);
38
-------
o Part 122.44(d) for higher levels
of treatment beyond secondary if
required to meet more stringent water
quality or State standards; or
o "Alternative Waste Management
Techniques for Best Practicable
Waste Treatment" (41 FR 6190) for
treatment and discharge to groundwater
after land application, utilization or
reuse.
The effluent limitations that the
BPWTT is designed to meet are
generally specified in a NPDES permit.
In those situations where a NPDES
permit has not been issued, enforce-
able requirements of the Act shall
include any requirements which, in the
Regional Administrator's judgement,
would be included in the permit when
issued. Where no permit applies,
enforceable requirements of the Act
shall include any requirement which
the Regional Administrator determines
is necessary for the BPWTT to meet the
applicable criteria.
As each of the three wastewater and
sludge management techniques is
evaluated, consider opportunities to
generate revenues and reduce the
use of or recover energy. Such
opportunities might include the
sale of methane gas after anaerobic
digestion, the sale of crops irrigated
with reclaimed wastewater, the sale of
water for irrigation or others.
Revenues generated through these
methods must be used to reduce
O&M costs resulting in lower user
charges.
Additional details of the three
management techniques are provided in
Sections 6.7.1 through 6.7.3. Several
important aspects of innovative and
alternative (I&A) technologies are as
fol1ows.
I&A technology projects offer an
opportunity to conserve energy or
resources and reduce costs. In
addition to the inherent incentives
(i.e., cost, energy, and resource
reductions) for innovative or
alternative (I or A) projects,
however, the law and regulations
provide additional incentives which
include:
o Increased Federal grant
assistance of 20 percent not to
exceed a total Federal share of
85 percent, 75 percent after September
30, 1984;
o Special set-asides of allotted
funds to be used exclusively on I or A
projects;
o Grant for field testing of
promising I or A projects;
o Potential higher ranking on
State's project priority list;
o 15 percent cost preference for I
or A projects over conventional
projects (except for privately owned
wastewater treatment works);
o Potential for 100 percent
replacement or modification grant for
I or A projects which fail within
2 years of initiation of operation.
In order to assist you and your
consultant in evaluating I or A
projects, EPA has established a
special program which provides
technical assistance during the
evaluation phase. Contact the I&A
coordinator in your State or EPA
office for additional information. In
addition, EPA has established a small
alternative wastewater technology
clearinghouse at West Virginia
University, which may provide helpful
39
-------
information to you. The clearinghouse
address and ordering information is
included in Appendix B.
6.7.1
CONVENTIONAL
TECHNOLOGIES
Conventional
concepts of
wastewater treatment
are defined as those involving a
biological or physical/chemical
wastewater treatment process at a
centralized facility with a direct
point source discharge to surface
waters. It is what the general public
considers to be sewage treatment;
i.e., gravity collection sewers all
connected to an interceptor sewer
leading to a centralized sewage
treatment plant which discharges its
effluent into the local stream, river,
or lake.
In the case of conventional concepts
of centralized treatment, the
processes employed are those which
have been used for years in water
pollution control and are, therefore,
fully proven and reliable. The
selection of one process over another
will be determined based on local
conditions, costs and environmental
impacts.
A significant by-product of wastewater
treatment is the production of sludge.
The cost-effectiveness of your project
may be improved by increasing the
reuse potential of your sludge through
decreasing the contaminants and by
reducing the quantity of sludge to be
handled. For this reason, you should
give special consideration to process
and programs that provide reusable
sludge by reducing contaminants.
Special consideration should also be
given to use of waste treatment and
sludge handling procedures that result
in reduced quantities of sludge.
Plan the management of your sludge
with as much care as you give to the
plan for treating wastewater. In
so doing, you should consider the
following factors:
o Stabilization and management
techniques that will not result
in adverse impacts on human health or
the environment;
o Cost-effective techniques for use
or disposal (including O&M costs);
and
o Public acceptance of sludge
reuse/disposal risks, costs,
alternatives and environmental
consequences; give particular
attention to siting problems.
Improvement of sludge quality and
reduction of sludge quantity (through
selection and operation of wastewater
and sludge management alternatives,
pretreatment, and source control) can
optimize cost-effective resource
recovery and public acceptance and
minimize environmental impacts.
Many different treatment, use and
disposal methods are available for
evaluation. In general, these methods
can be considered in two major
categories:
o Treatment and volume reduction
incineration (thermal reduction),
composting and surface impoundments;
and
o Ultimate utilization and
disposal - landfills, ocean dumping
and discharge, 1andspreading and
distribution/marketing.
In addition to the CWA, there are
other existing Federal laws which
emphasize the need for environmentally
sound methods for the reuse and
40
-------
disposal of municipal sewage sludge.
They include: the CAA, the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act,
the National Environmental Policy Act,
and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA
requires control of solid wastes
including toxic and hazardous
materials.
In general, municipal sludges are
not hazardous. However, large
quantities of storm-water or
industrial discharge into the
wastewater treatment system will
increase the possibility that your
sludge may be classified as hazardous
(Section 11.1.7).
Because of the complex nature of
sludge management EPA has prepared
"A Guide to Regulations and Guidance
for the Utilization and Disposal of
Municipal Sludge" (MCD-72). You
should obtain a copy of this publica-
tion and also discuss sludge disposal
options with your project reviewer.
6.7.2*
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
Alternative
technology is a
concept of
wastewater treatment or sludge
management which emphasizes conserva-
tion or eliminates the discharge of
pollutants. This concept places
strong emphasis on reclaiming and
reusing wastewater, productive
recycling of wastewater and sludge
constituents, energy recovery or other
environmental benefits that may
contribute to reducing costs.
Alternative technology is defined as
any one of a number of processes and
is specifically defined to include
methods of effluent treatment (land
application, for example), methods of
sludge handling and disposal (land
application as a fertilizer or
anaerobic digestion to recover and use
methane gas), and methods such as
onsite (septic systems) treatment or
alternative conveyance systems which
have special applicability for use in
small communities. A listing of the
technologies which have been defined
as alternative is as follows:
Effluent Treatment
Land treatment (rapid infiltration,
slow rate irrigation, and overland
flow)
Aquifer recharge
Aquaculture
Direct reuse (nonpotable)
Horticulture
Revegetation of disturbed land
Containment ponds (Total)
Preapplication treatment and storage
of treated effluent (prior to land
treatment)
SIudge
Land application
Composting prior to land application
Drying prior to land application
Energy Recovery
Anaerobic digestion (greater than 90%
methane recovery and use)
Self-sustaining incineration
41
-------
Small Community Systems
Onsite treatment (individual or
cluster)
Septage treatment
Alternative collection and conveyance
systems
Applicable centralized treatment
alternatives (as described above)
Alternative technologies are
considered to be fully proven but
may be relatively unknown because
of infrequent use. They also require
some rather unique consideration
during facilities planning. Four
alternative technologies are discussed
in some detail to provide more
specific guidance for covering such
unique considerations in facilities
planning.
o Land treatment - Land application
for treatment and reuse of wastewater
is encouraged by both the CWA and the
EPA because of the recycling and
reclaiming of resources and the
potential cost and energy savings
compared to AT. Note, however,
that if you have an AT discharge
requirement, you must evaluate
conventional AT technologies as well
as land treatment. Costs of land used
as an integral part of the treatment
process may be allowable for grant
funding (Section 8.4.6). The 15 per-
cent cost preference (Section 6.7.4)
is also applicable for publicly
owned land treatment systems.
A two-phased approach to the evalua-
tion of land treatment is recommended.
The first phase should focus on
availability of suitable sites and
whether the cost of land treatment is
competitive with other alternatives.
The second phase would include an
in-depth investigation of sites and
refinement of site-specific design
factors. An analysis of land treat-
ment should follow the procedures
given in "Process Design Manual: Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater"
(EPA-625/1-81-013). Key design
factors covered in this manual
include:
- Site selection - The plan should
inqlude a map and describe
reasons for rejecting sites as
well as the availability of
suitable sites. Categorical
elimination of land treatment
for lack of suitable sites is
generally unacceptable unless
well documented with supporting
data;
- Loading rates and land area -
Values outside those in the
design manual should be justified
and supported by a discussion of
extenuating circumstances, such
as seasonal limitations for
application;
- Estimated costs - Costs for land
treatment should be consistent
with those in the literature.
Elimination of land treatment due
to unusually high costs should be
documented;
Preapplication treatment - The
need for treatment more stringent
than recommended in the EPA
design manual should be well
documented. If documentation is
not acceptable, the costs of the
additional processes beyond those
recommended in the design manual
may be unallowable for grant
funding;
- Environmental
environmental
effects - The
evaluation of
42
-------
land treatment systems should
emphasize quality and quantity
of surface and groundwater
resources, energy conservation,
pollutant recycling, and compati-
bility of land use. BPWTT
criteria are to be met for
protection of groundwater based
on current quality and uses of
the water.
Three major techniques of land
treatment have been defined as
alternative technologies. These
include slow rate irrigation, rapid
infiltration and overland flow and are
discussed separately in EPA design
manuals. Other land application
techniques defined as alternative
were listed at the beginning of
Section 6.7.2.
Alternative sludge technologies -
Alternative sludge techniques are
encouraged by the CWA and EPA due
to resource conservation, energy
savings or higher level of treatment
achieved over conventional sludge
management techniques.
- Composting is a treatment
process which stabilizes and
disinfects sludges, resulting in
products which can be distributed
and marketed (giveaway/sale
program), 1andspread or used as a
cover for landfills. The major
composting techniques used in
this nation are open air systems
(aerated pile and windrow),
though more complex systems
(enclosed and mechanical) are now
being introduced. Land may be an
eligible cost (Section 8.6.4).
Planning for a composting process
requires some special site
considerations to ensure public
acceptance.
Landspreading can be used in
agriculture, silviculture, turf
grass production, in revegetating
strip-mined or other disturbed
areas, on roadsides, as well as
other uses. Many forms of
sludge (e.g., liquid, dewatered,
composted) can be utilized for
landspreading. It is important
to plan for mitigation of
contaminants such as pathogens,
heavy metals and toxic organics
in landspread sludge and to
identify any State or local
restrictions on the landspreading
of sludge. One of the most
critical components in planning a
successful landspreading program
is having interaction with and
support from nearby residents and
farmers. Land may be an eligible
cost (Section 8.6.4).
Distribution and marketing
(giveaway/sale program), like
landspreading, involves the
utilization of the plant
nutrients and soil conditioning
properties of sludge. Distribu-
tion and marketing, in contrast
to landspreading, generally
requires a very well stabilized
and easy to handle sludge product
low in critical contaminants.
For this reason, well disinfected
and low moisture products (e.g.,
composted, heat-dried sludges
from cleaner sources) are more
appropriate for giveaway/sale
programs. Considerable marketing
expertise is needed to provide
use instructions and to convey to
the receiving public that sludge
is a valuable resource, and not a
worthless waste product.
Planning new facilities or
conversion of existing anaerobic
digesters for the recovery and
43
-------
utilization of methane can result
in considerable cost savings for
many municipalities.
- In order to be eligible for the
alternative technology grant
funding preference, an incinera-
tion system must be a net energy
producer or "self-sustaining"
(including the energy used for
sludge dewatering, combustion and
pollution control equipment). To
meet this requirement, extremely
energy efficient equipment and
operating procedures (such as
codisposal) have to be used for
collecting and recovering heat
energy. The facilities plan
should include good documentation
of net energy production and,
as appropriate, use of the net
energy.
o Small alternative wastewater
systems (SAWS) - SAWS are systems that
serve small communities with a popula-
tion of 3,500 or less or sparsely
populated areas of larger communities.
These SAWS may receive up to 85 per-
cent grants (75 percent after
September 30, 1984) because they
qualify as alternative technology
(Section 6.7.2).
For areas where the population is
less than 6 persons, but 1.7 or more
persons per acre (one household per
2 acres), SAWS systems should be
carefully evaluated. Where the
population density in an area is
less than 1.7 persons per acre (one
household per 2 acres) SAWS are
generally cost-effective unless severe
pollution or public health problems
exist and conventional collectors
are shown to be clearly more cost-
effective than other alternatives
for sparsely populated areas
(Section 6.4).
Twenty-one SAWS are briefly
illustrated and described in an EPA
publication (FRD-10) available from
EPA (Appendix B). Detailed technical
descriptions of many of these systems
are found in EPA's "Design Manual for
Onsite Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems" (EPA-625/1-80-012).
Several other EPA publications provide
detailed technical information on SAWS
technology and management. Others
provide useful information for persons
not involved with the design of SAWS.
(See Appendix B for titles.) You
are encouraged to review these
publications.
EPA's small alternative wastewater
technology clearinghouse at West
Virginia University (see Appendix B
for address) can assist you in
obtaining state-of-the-art and other
information on SAWS. In addition, you
may also contact your State or
EPA regional I/A coordinator for
assistance in project planning.
In addition to the inherent incentives
(e.g., cost, energy and resource
reductions), the CWA and regulations
provide additional incentives to
promote appropriate use of alternative
technologies. Special set-asides,
cost preference and other provisions
are described in the general discus-
sions of I&A technologies found in
Section 6.7.
Combinations of SAWS and conventional
systems may also provide considerable
savings compared with a single conven-
tional collection and centralized
treatment system. For example, septic
systems may work quite well in many
small towns except in an isolated
area such as a business district or
"downtown" area where open space for
septic systems is not available. In
this case, the business district could
44
-------
be served by a conventional collection
and treatment system or an alternative
conveyance system to a cluster
treatment system on the outskirts of
the congested area, while the outlying
areas may use septic systems.
Intermittent sand filters (ISF) may
often be cost-effective for unsewered
areas where conditions do not permit
the use of conventional soil absorp-
tion systems. ISF provide a low
cost method for upgrading failing
septic tank systems. They may be well
suited for treating wastewater from
single-family residences, clusters of
residences, and small commercial
establishments.
Grant assistance may be provided
for both publicly and privately owned
SAWS serving residences and small
commercial establishments that were
inhabited or in use on or before
December 27, 1977. However, these
systems (see discussion in this
section) must serve principal
residences in order to be grant
eligible.
It is necessary that your municipality
have access to SAWS even though
portions may be on private property.
While this requirement may be met by
an easement or a covenant, it may be
easily satisfied by a simple agreement
that is recorded with the deed.
Another option is State enabling
legislation which ensures access to
municipal wastewater land disposal
zones.
For publicly owned systems, the
agreement referred to above should
state that:
- The municipality will retain
ownership of the system;
- The municipality will be able
to enter the property for
inspection, monitoring,
construction, O&M, rehabilita-
tion or replacement purposes
at reasonable times for the
life of the project; and
- The municipality will have
complete control over the
system.
For privately owned systems a simple
agreement with the property owner
will suffice if it is recorded with
the deed for the property served by
each individual system. The agreement
provides for access to the system at
all reasonable times for inspection,
monitoring, construction, maintenance,
operation, rehabilitation, or replace-
ment over the life of the project.
Title abstracts or insurance, detailed
property and septic tank location
descriptions, or land surveys are not
required for either publicly or
privately owned systems.
Describe in the facilities plan a
management program for SAWS to be
'implemented after award of grant
assistance. The description should
include provisions for:
- Physical inspection of all
onsite systems in the planning
area as is necessary to insure
proper operation;
- Pumpouts, renovation, and
replacement as needed;
- Routine maintenance and
servicing of mechanical and
electrical components;
- Testing of selected existing,
local potable water wells
once a year;
45
-------
- Additional monitoring of
water supply aquifers, if
appropriate, where substantial
numbers of onsite systems
exist; and
- A user charge system
and financing plan
(Section 12.2).
Your management program could also
provide for review and approval of
new sites and installations, and
a public education program for
homeowners concerning the operation
and maintenance of their individual
systems.
For a more complete discussion of
management programs, see "Management
of Onsite and Small Community
Wastewater Systems" (Appendix B),.
The 15 percent cost preference
(Section 6.7.4) is applicable to
"publicly owned" SAWS (not privately
owned, individual systems) to
determine if it is the most cost-
effective alternative (Section 7.3.1).
o Individual systems - Individual
systems are small alternative
wastewater treatment systems that are
privately owned. These systems are
typically onsite or cluster treatment
and disposal systems.
As a financial incentive to small
or rural communities, an eligible
municipality may apply for a grant for
construction of individual, privately
owned treatment works when they are
shown to be cost-effective and public
ownership is not feasible.
Grants for individual, privately
owned systems may be made only
for those which serve "principal
residences" (residence for 51 percent
or more of the year, i.e., not second
homes or vacation or recreation
residences), and "small commercial
establishments" with dry weather
flows of 25,000 gallons per day or
less. Private nonprofit entities
such as churches, schools, hospitals
or charitable organizations are
considered small commercial establish-
ments. These residences and
establishments must have been
constructed by and inhabited on or
before December 27, 1977.
Individual (privately owned) systems
do not qualify for the 15 percent cost
preference to determine cost
effectiveness. However, they are
eligible for up to 85 percent (75 per-
cent after September 30, 1984) grant
assistance (Section 7.3.1).
6.7.3
INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY
Innovative
technology is signi-
ficantly different
from either conventional concepts of
centralized treatment or alternative
technology. Innovative technology is
not a specifically defined treatment
process; it is something new which has
not been fully proven but is promising
based on results from research and
demonstration projects. Innovative
technology includes an element of risk
and a corresponding benefit which
outweighs the risk. The designation
of a project, portion of a project, or
a process unit as innovative should
encourage the design and construc-
tion of more efficient municipal
wastewater treatment projects by
advocating departure from the standard
engineering and design practices. It
is to be noted that both conventional
concepts of centralized treatment and
alternative technology are candidates
for innovative classification if
either meets criteria established to
46
-------
ensure the goal of advancing the
state-of-the-art for a promising new
concept that should significantly
reduce costs or provide significant
environmental benefits. Examples of
these criteria are as follows:
o Cost reduction (in the range of
15 percent life cycle cost);
o Net primary energy reduction (in
the range of 20 percent);
o Improved toxics management;
o Improved operational reliability;
o Improved environmental benefit;
and
o Improved joint industrial/
municipal treatment.
There are some key factors to consider
in the use of these criteria to
present, review and decide upon
the designation of a project as
innovative. The cost and energy
criteria are quantitative while the
other criteria are qualitative and
tend to be subjective. Documentation
to support designation as innovative
in the facilities plan will be more
difficult for the qualitative criteria
yet it is important that this be done.
Some concepts for use of the criteria
are discussed separately.
o Cost reduction - The proposed
processes or techniques should
significantly reduce costs (in the
range of 15 percent). The cost
referred to here is life cycle cost or
total present worth costs, i.e., the
capital costs plus the present worth
of the operating, maintenance, and
replacement costs minus the present
worth of the salvage value over
I the life of the project. The cost
I comparison must be made throughout
the treatment system to determine
the influences of the processes
proposed for innovative designation.
For example, an aeration process
which reduces aeration life-cycle
costs by 15 percent with no other
influences would satisfy the criteria,
while an aeration process which
reduces aeration life-cycle costs by
15 percent but cause* a comparable
10 percent cost increase in other
processes, would not satisfy the
criteria.
o Efficient use of energy - The
proposed process or technique
significantly reduces (perhaps through
recovery and reuse) primary energy use
(in the range of 20 percent). Primary
energy referred to here is the energy
that crosses the treatment plant
boundary (electricity or natural gas,
for example). The definition of
primary energy as "that crossing the
treatment plant boundary" eliminates
the necessity of evaluating how
the electricity, for example, was
generated (burning coal, oil-fired
generator, etc.). The net primary
energy savings is determined by
comparing the proposed innovative
process against the least energy-
consuming process (which must also be
cost-effective) which would have
been selected if no innovative process
was considered, i.e., the least
energy consuming and cost-effective
non-innovative process.
o Improved toxics management - For
this criterion the proposed innovative
process or technique should reduce or
eliminate the direct and indirect
exposure of known toxicants to the
environment beyond that normally
expected in conventional treatment
practice. Better management can
be demonstrated through reduction in
exposure brought about by chemical,
47
-------
physical, or biological mechanisms
that reduce or eliminate the recycling
of toxicants within or between media.
Recognizing that many, if not all,
known toxicants should be eliminated
at the source through pretreatment
of wastes (primarily industrial),
this criterion is less likely to be
employed for qualifying a process
as innovative.
o Improved operational relia-
bility - Under this criterion the
proposed process or technique should:
(a) provide decreased susceptibility
to plant upsets or interference,
(b) result in reduced occurrence of
inadequately treated discharges, or
(c) provide decreased levels of
required operator attention and
skills. These results may be achieved
by any one or more of the following
means:
Greater
bility;
mechanical relia-
- Greater inherent physical,
chemical or biological process
stability or reliability
including processes or trans-
formations taking place in the
soils of land application
systems;
- Improved system design;
- Increased standby or backup
facilities;
- Continuous monitoring alert or
diversion systems.
o Improved environmental benefit -
This criterion is more subjective than
the others and requires considerable
explanation in the facilities plan
if it is to be used as a means of
qualifying a proposed process as
innovative. The improved environ-
mental benefit should fall into one
of five specific areas, namely,
(a) water conservation, (b) more
effective land use, (c) improved air
quality, (d) improved groundwater
quality, and (e) reduced resource
requirements for facility construction
and operation.
o Improved joint industrial/
municipal treatment - This criterion
refers to treatment of industrial
wastes discharged into a municipal
collection system for treatment
at the publicly owned treatment
works or the joint treatment of
municipal and industrial residuals
(sludge) resulting from the joint or
independent treatment of liquid
wastes. The objective of this
criterion is to encourage the develop-
ment of management techniques which
allow for the joint treatment of
industrial/municipal wastes which
(a) maximize the cost-effectiveness of
treatment, (b) equitably distribute
costs, (c) achieve improved management
of wastes, and (d) control toxic
materials and industrial wastes.
Examples of some candidate industrial/
municipal joint treatment opportuni-
ties are:
- Use of industrial heat to
improve liquid or solids
processing efficiency;
- Industrial use of municipal
treatment residuals;
- Use of industrial waste
products as a source of
additives or bulking agents in
treatment processes (i.e.,
waste pickle liquor, wood
chips, or fly ash).
48
-------
6.7.4*
INNOVATIVE AND As encouragement to
ALTERNATIVE COST consider and employ
PREFERENCE I&A technologies,
the law provides a 15 percent cost
preference for either I or A
technology. Put in a different way,
the present worth cost of the I
or A technology may be 15 percent
more than the present worth cost
of the least costly conventional
alternative and still be considered
equal.
To understand the application of the
15 percent (sometimes referred to as
115 percent) cost preference, refer to
example 4 in Appendix E. If the
entire project is claimed to be
I or A technology, multiply the total
present worth cost of the least costly
conventional alternative by 1.15
(i.e., increase the total present
worth cost by 15 percent) to establish
a ceiling cost. The ceiling cost
represents the maximum total present
worth cost that may not be exceeded by
the proposed I or A project in order
to be considered cost-effective.
If the proposed I or A project does
not exceed the ceiling or maximum
total present worth cost determined
above, it may be selected as the
proposed project assuming that
other criteria beyond I&A considera-
tions are acceptable (environmental
impacts, public acceptance,
implementability, etc.).
If the proposed I or A project
contains only certain components
or unit processes that are claimed
as I or A, the 50 percent rule is
employed. If the proposed I or A
components or unit processes represent
50 percent or more of the total
present worth costs of the I&A
project, multiply the total present
worth cost of the least costly
conventional alternative by 1.15 to
establish the ceiling cost and proceed
as described above.
If the proposed I or A components or
unit processes represent less than
50 percent of the total present worth
cost of the I&A project, multiply only
the replaced conventional components
by 1.15 and add the present worth cost
of the other conventional components
to obtain the ceiling costs. Again,
proceed as above.
It should be noted that the cost
preference merely provides an extra
margin in terms of total present worth
cost to proposed I or A projects but
does not change the Federal grant
share. In all cases, whether the
proposed I or A project contains 1,
5, 10, 50, 73, or 92 percent I&A
components or unit processes, only the
I or A components or unit processes
receive the increased grant share.
6.8
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOWS
The costs and
benefits from
control of combined
sewer overflows (CSO) vary with
numerous environmental and system
related factors. Decisions relating
to CSO s are made on a case-by-case
basis.
Control of pollution from CSOs should
be considered if application of BPWTT
for dry-weather flows will not meet
water quality standards. Where
measures are proposed for the control
of CSOs, the facilities plan should
evaluate the following:
o Alternative control techniques
and management practices that could
attain various levels of pollution
49
-------
control, including repairs, restora-
tion, and maintenance of the existing
system, newly emerging nonstructural
and less structurally intensive
methods such as in-line storage, swirl
concentrators and sewer flushing
equipment;
o Cost of achieving various levels
of pollution control by each of the
control techniques that appear to be
most feasible and cost-effective;
o Benefits to receiving waters of
a range of pollution control alterna-
tives during wet weather conditions;
consult WQM plan as appropriate;
o Costs and benefits from addition
of advanced treatment processes
for dry weather flows in the area as
an alternative to CSO control.
The alternatives selected for control
of CSOs should meet the following
criteria:
o The analysis demonstrates that
the proposed level of pollution
control is necessary to protect a
beneficial use of the receiving waters
even after the standards required by
the CWA for industrial discharges
are met and a minimum of secondary
treatment is achieved for all dry-
weather municipal discharges in the
area;
o 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 under Section 301(h)
of the CWA has been received by EPA;
o 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 (see the CSO Guidebook and CSO
Manual - Appendix B);
o The marginal costs of control
are not substantial compared to
incremental 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, you
should request additional guidance
from your project reviewer. To
determine what portion of CSO control
costs for a multiple-purpose project
is allowable for grant funding,
refer to the multipurpose discussion
in Section 7.1.3.
The Agency's strategy for addressing
CSO needs is based on the 1981
amendments to the CWA (PL 97-117).
The CWA provides three ways to fund
correction of CSOs. Section 201(g)(l)
provides that CSOs are eligible
for grants for the construction of
municipal wastewater treatment
facilities from funds available under
Section 205 until September 30, 1984.
Thereafter, CSOs will no longer be an
eligible category, however, the
Governor may recommend the use of up
to 20 percent of the State's annual
allotment for previously eligible
categories, such as CSOs.
Second, Section 201(n)(2) creates a
special fund to correct CSOs into
marine bays and estuaries where
significant usage of the waters for
shell fishing and swimming would not
otherwise be possible. This fund,
administered by EPA Headquarters, has
received appropriations totalling $60
million for fiscal years 1983 and
1984.
50
-------
Finally, beginning October 1, 1984,
Section* 201(n)(l) allows use of
section 205 funds in the State's
regular allotment to correct CSOs not
eligible under Section 201(n)(2).
Such projects may receive grant funds
only if the State designates the
receiving water as high priority and
demonstrates that significant usage of
the waters for fishing and swimming
would not otherwise be possible.
Regulations concerning funding of CSOs
from the regular State allotment at
the Governor's request, require
demonstration of need for attaining or
enhancing swimming and fishing uses.
This demonstration of need (Section
35.2024) is similar to that described
in the guidance for marine CSOs. At
its discretion, the State may use
the marine CSO guidance in preparing
its demonstration. For funding of
CSOs from the Governor's 20 percent
| discretionary fund, such a demonstra-
tion is not required. However,
because the impacts of CSOs and
the degree of improvement provided
by corrections are difficult to
determine, and due to limited funds
available, States may require a
demonstration under priority list
criteria.
Because CSO is an ineligible category
after fiscal year 1984, if a CSO
project is funded under the Governor's
20 percent discretionary fund, the
Federal share will be 55 percent (or
lower if a uniform lower Federal share
is set by the Governor). This is also
true of other no longer eligible
categories, i.e., collector sewers and
major sewer system rehabilitation.
The review of plans and specifications
for marine CSOs can be delegated to
the States once the Regions are
satisfied that the States have the
ability and resources to conduct the
review.
It should be noted that the CWA
prohibits grant assistance for control
of pollutant discharges from a
separate storm sewer system or
from a system that was not designed to
carry both storm- and wastewater.
6.9
MUNICIPAL
TREATMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL AND
FEDERAL FACIL-
ITIES WASTES
Consider the issues
mentioned below when
planning municipal
treatment facilities
that will accommo-
date industrial
flows or wastes from Federal
facilities. The treatment works
design capacity may include allowances
for industrial flows if the principal
purpose of both your project and the
wastewater treatment system of which
it is a part, is for the treatment of
domestic wastewater of the entire
community, area, region or district
concerned (Section 5.5.2). However,
grant assistance will not be provided
for:
o Costs of interceptor or collector
sewers constructed exclusively, or
almost exclusively to serve industrial
users; or
o Costs for control or removal of
pollutants from industrial users
unless you are required to remove
such pollutants introduced from
nonindustrial users; or
o Costs to transport or treat
wastewater from a Federal facility
which contributes more than 250,000
gallons per day or 5 percent of the
design flow of the complete waste
treatment system, whichever is less.
51
-------
Where industries will be served by the
proposed facilities, a pretreatment
program is required when:
o The municipal treatment works
or combination of treatment works
operated by the same authority has
a flow greater than 5 million gallons
per day and serves or is expected
to serve industries discharging
pollutants which pass through or
interfere with the operation of the
plant or are otherwise subject to
pretreatment requirements under the
CWA;and
o The water quality management plan
does not include a pretreatment
program.
Other situations when a pretreatment
program may be required should
be discussed with your EPA or State
project reviewer or NPDES permit
officer. Section 8.5.4 identifies
specific elements to be included in a
pretreatment program.
6.10
STAGED
CONSTRUCTION
Adding plant
capacity or
extending inter-
ceptors in stages during the 20-year
planning period may be more cost-
effective than full development
initially.
Factors you should consider are:
o Relative cost of providing full
capacity initially compared with
the present worth of deferred costs
for providing capacity when needed;
and
o 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 in the
interim but phased out later.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
staged construction, you should select
an appropriate staging period as shown
below unless your State has developed
other guidelines.
If the ratio of:
Qo/Ql is
Less than 1.3
1.3 to 1.8
Greater than 1.8
Staging
Period (Years)
20
15
10
Where Qp is flow at end of a
20-year planning period and Qi is flow
at the beginning of plant operation.
The staging period for interceptors
is normally 20 years. However, within
the limitations on reserve capacity
discussed in Section 5.5, a larger
interceptor may be appropriate.
In evaluating an interceptor with
capacity beyond 20 years, consider
if:
o The larger pipe will reduce
adverse direct and indirect environ-
mental impacts;
o It is consistent with projected
land use patterns;
o It complies with Federal, State
or local environmental laws;
o It takes into account daily or
seasonal variations of flow, timing of
flows from various parts of the
tributary area, and pipe storage
effects;
52
-------
o Off pipe storage to reduce peak
flow is feasible; and
o Appropriate peak flow factors
that decrease as average daily flow to
be conveyed increases have been used.
6.11
MULTIPLE A multiple purpose
PURPOSE PROJECTS project is a project
designed to meet
the enforceable requirements of the
CWA (i.e., NPDES permit or ground-
water criteria), but which also has
components designed to serve other
functions as well (e.g., agricultural,
municipal, or industrial water
supply, sludge management using
codisposal of solid waste, or energy
production). Appendix 0 contains
additional information on cost
allocation for multiple purpose
projects.
Projects designed only to meet an
enforceable requirement are considered
single purpose. Thus, a project
that includes land application as
an integral part of a wastewater
treatment system to meet effluent
limitations is considered single
purpose. An agricultural reuse
project that uses effluent that
normally would be discharged to a
stream, i.e., discharge meets NPDES
limitations, is considered multiple
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.
Section 7.1.3 discusses the identifi-
cation of allowable costs for multiple
purpose projects.
CHAPTER 7
EVALUATION OF PRINCIPAL
ALTERNATIVES AND PLAN ADOPTION
7.0
ALTERNATIVE After developing
EVALUATION feasible alter-
natives as described
in Chapter 6, systematically screen
them to identify those capable
of meeting Federal, State and
local criteria (Section 6.7).
Analyze the resulting principal
alternatives to identify those which
are potentially cost-effective.
Principal alternatives selected
through this screening process will
undergo a thorough cost-effectiveness
analysis. The level of detail in your
analysis depends upon the size and
complexity of your project. In the
facilities plan discuss the reasons
for the selection of a preferred
alternative and the reasons for the
elimination of other alternatives.
The following sections describe in
greater detail the screening criteria
for plan selection.
7.1
EVALUATION OF Calculate present
MONETARY COSTS worth or equivalent
uniform annual costs
for each principal alternative in
order to make a valid comparison of
future capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M). "Present worth" is
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 expression of a
nonuniform series of expenditures
as a uniform annual amount. Since
both methods produce equivalent
results, either may be used. Several
53
-------
examples employing these methods of
cost analysis are given in Appendix E.
Detailed procedures for making these
calculations are explained in most
engineering economics textbooks.
The discount rate expected to be used
for facilities planning begun in
fiscal year 1985 (October 1, 1984 to
September 30, 1985) is 8 3/8 percent.
The rate changes each yearj check with
your project reviewer.
You should calculate costs on the
basis of market prices prevailing at
the time of your cost-effectiveness
analysis. The analysis should not
allow for inflation of wages and
prices, except those for land and
energy (Section 7.1.2). This is based
on the assumption that prices for
resources involved in treatment works
construction and operation, other than
the exceptions, will tend to change
over time by approximately the same
percentage. It is the differences in
cost among alternatives that are
important in the screening process as
these differences will help identify
the most cost-effective alternative.
Later an updated or perhaps more
detailed cost estimate of the selected
plan can be made since it is this
cost estimate that will be used in
evaluating your community's financial
capability.
Your analysis should include all costs
(capital, annual and other direct
costs such as disruption of business
due to street work or opportunity
costs such as the market value
of publicly owned land that could
be used for purposes other than
wastewater treatment) that are
attributable to the building and
operation of your treatment works.
Some examples of capital costs
are: building the wastewater
treatment facility (including sludge
management), interceptor sewers, pump
stations, collection sewers; lease,
easement or acquisition of sites or
rights-of-way; and relocation. Costs
that may not be grant eligible, such
as house laterals on conventional
collectors, should also be included.
Costs for O&M (e.g., labor, utilities,
materials, outside services, expenses,
and replacement of equipment and parts
to ensure effective and dependable
operation during the planning
period) must be included in the cost-
effectiveness analysis. These costs
usually include both fixed and
variable costs, the latter generally
depending on the quantity of waste-
water collected and treated.
If necessary and appropriate, interest
during construction may be computed in
one of two ways. If expenditures are
uniform and the construction period
is less than 4 years, interest is
computed by taking one-half of
the product of the construction
period (years), the total capital
expenditures ($) and the discount
rate. Otherwise, the interest
should be calculated on a year-by-year
basis.
The revenue which you may receive from
the sale of treatment by-products
(e.g., methane gas, crops, sludge or
compost, etc.) is generally reflected
in the cost-effectiveness analysis
(Section 7.1.3). You should subtract
any revenue from the annual O&M cost
in your cost-effectiveness analysis.
Your cost-effectiveness analysis
should also consider the salvage value
of the treatment works at the end of
the planning period. This value is
based on a straight-line depreciation
from the initial cost at the time of
analysis to the end of the planning
54
-------
period (except for land as noted in
Section 7.1.2). You should use the
following periods for the design life
of the treatment works components:
o Land—permanent;
o Wastewater conveyance structures
(collection systems, outfall pipes,
interceptors, force mains, tunnels,
etc.)~50 years;
o Other structures (plant
buildings, concrete tankage, basins,
lift station structures, etc.)—30 to
50 years;
o Process equipment--15 to 20
years;
o Auxiliary equipment—10 to 15
years.
For interim facilities with an
anticipated useful life of less than
20 years, salvage value should be
based on demonstrated resale or
reuse opportunities at the end of the
interim period.
Once the present worth or equivalent
uniform annual cost is determined
for each principal alternative, the
alternative which is cost-effective
can be identified.
There is also a cost preference for
innovative or alternative technology
projects. Section 6.7.4 provides
additional guidance and summarizes the
procedures for application of the cost
preference.
7.1.1
SUNK COSTS Any investments or
financial commit-
ments made before or during facilities
planning are regarded as sunk costs.
As sunk costs they should not be
included in the cost-effectiveness
analysis because they have already
been committed regardless of
the alternative selected. Such
investments and commitments include:
o Investments in existing
wastewater treatment facilities
and associated lands even though
incorporated in the plan;
o Outstanding bond indebtedness;
and
o Costs for preparing the
facilities plan.
7.1.2
COST ESCALATION
FACTORS FOR
ENERGY USE AND
LAND
Energy prices may be
escalated for the
appropriate fuel if
historical data for
your area show that
energy prices have been increasing at
a faster rate than building and O&M
costs other than energy. You should
consider the applicable provisions of
existing State energy plans which
effect energy costs but should not
delay if a plan is not available.
Land prices should be escalated at a
uniform rate of 3 percent per year
except for right-of-way easements.
7.1.3
ALLOCATION OF Multiple purpose
COSTS FOR projects combine
MULTIPLE water pollution
PURPOSE PROJECTS control practices
meeting the enforce-
able requirements of the CWA with
other purposes (e.g., agricultural,
energy generation or recreation).
Generally, when projects involve
multiple purposes (Section 6.11) and
cost more than an alternative single
purpose project designed for municipal
pollution control only, the allocation
of costs to each purpose will be
based on the Alternative Justifiable
Expenditure (AJE) method as described
in Appendix 0.
55
-------
However, if a multiple purpose
project is the cost-effective way of
satisfying enforceable requirements
(e.g., for CSOs), it should be treated
as a single purpose project to
determine grant eligibility. If the
project is cost-effective, it is the
preferred alternative regardless of
what other purposes it serves. When
preparing the cost-effectiveness
analysis, apply the 15 percent
cost preference as appropriate for
innovative and alternative (I&A)
projects.
Also, multiple purpose projects that
combine wastewater treatment with
recreation do not need to use the AJE
method but can be funded at the level
of the cost-effective, single purpose
alternative. Incremental costs of the
recreation component that exceed
the cost-effective, single purpose
alternative cannot be grant funded.
To determine what percentage of a
project with recreation purposes
is allowable, you should calculate the
grant eligibility percentage by
dividing the present worth of the
cost-effective pollution control
alternative by the present worth of
the multiple purpose project, and
multiplying the result by 100.
Another simpler means of determining
allowable costs can be used for
proposed projects that involve clearly
separate recreational components
that are part of an otherwise
single purpose project. Here the
allowable cost simply equals the total
capital cost of the single purpose
components.
To determine the grant assistance for
each component of other multiple
purpose projects, multiply the cost
of the component by the allowable
percentage determined by the
appropriate cost allocation method.
The resulting amount is then
multiplied by 75 percent (55 percent
after September 30, 1984) for a
non-I&A component and 85 percent
(75 percent after September 30, 1984)
for an I&A component. Funding of up
to 85 percent 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.
Revenues generated by multiple purpose
projects ordinarily should not
be deducted from costs in either cost-
effectiveness comparisons with
single purpose projects or in cost
allocations. However, some projects
involving revenues from cogeneration
of energy in the form of steam or
methane gas may qualify for a limited
exception. If an energy cogeneration
project involves the sale of energy
rather than its reuse within the
plant, then anticipated revenues may
be used in cost calculations up to a
maximum of the net value of energy
(revenue less cost of plant reuse)
that reasonably could have been
reused within the wastewater pollution
control components of the proposed
project.
7.2
RESERVE
CAPACITY
Although you may
propose reserve
treatment works
capacity beyond that allowable for
grant assistance, it is not grant
fundable. After September 30, 1984,
grant assistance will be limited to
the estimated cost for the treatment
works capacity required at the
time of grant award. Additionally,
grant assistance awarded after
September 30, 1990, shall be limited
56
-------
to needs existing on September 30,
1990. You should describe the project
to serve existing needs and the
project with reserve capacity at the
same level of detail. Special
emphasis should be placed on the
environmental (particularly indirect)
and financial impacts of the proposed
reserve capacity project.
If reserve capacity is proposed beyond
that allowable for grant assistance
(Section 5.5.2), it is necessary to
calculate a proportioning factor
(as a percentage) to be applied to
other allowable project costs (e.g.,
architect/engineer (A/E) services
during building, acquisition of
eligible land, etc.). The propor-
tioning factor, at the time of grant
application, is based on the ratio
of the estimated building costs, i.e.,
construction contractor costs for
building the project. Compute the
proportioning factor as the ratio of
the allowable building costs for the
grant allowable capacity divided by
the building costs for the proposed
larger project. Apply this factor
to the other allowable project cost
and add the appropriate allowance
(Section 13.5) to determine the dollar
amount of grant assistance.
When estimating the building costs for
both the allowable and reserve
capacity projects, be consistent and,
where appropriate, use recent cost
curves published by EPA (such as
MCD-10, MCD-53, FRD-11, FRD-21,
FRD-22; see Appendix B for names and
availability of these publications).
Although grant assistance may only
fund a portion of the project,
the review and approval process will
be the same as for a fully funded
project. If the environmental impacts
of any portion of the project are
unacceptable, grant assistance will
not be awarded to the project.
When you receive the grant offer, it
may include special grant conditions
to protect the Federal government from
any claim for any of the costs of
construction due to reserve capacity.
In addition, it should be noted that
the user charge system applies to the
entire project including the part
providing the reserve capacity.
7.3
DEMONSTRATION
OF FINANCIAL
CAPABILITY
The Clean Water Act
(CWA) provides that
no grant shall be
awarded for the
construction of a publicly owned
treatment works unless the applicant
has demonstrated satisfactorily that
it has the legal, institutional,
managerial, and financial capability
to ensure adequate construction and
O&M (including equipment replacement)
of the proposed treatment system.
Requirements for demonstrating
financial and management capability
are contained in the construction
grant regulations. The Agency's
Policy on Financial and Management
Capability (Appendix K) explains these
requirements.
Guidance has been developed to
help States implement the policy
(Appendix K). This guidance contains
a Reviewer's Checklist, Analysis for
Correcting High Cost Projects, and
Suggested Screening System Elements.
To assist grant applicants in
demonstrating their financial
capability, EPA has prepared a
"Financial Capability Guidebook" which
is available from your State agency or
EPA Regional Office. This guidebook
also provides a method to evaluate the
community's financial condition. The
57
-------
guidebook is structured around two
basic information sheets: the Waste-
water Facilities Financial Information
Sheet attached to the policy and a
Supplemental Information Sheet. The
Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet provides an optional
format that can be used to answer the
five questions contained in the
policy. Your State may have developed
a different format for answering
these questions. The Supplemental
Information Sheet is provided to
assist in evaluating the community's
financial condition. Although it is
not an EPA requirement to complete
this information sheet, your community
may find it useful in evaluating
whether the community could success-
fully finance the system or should
investigate other appropriate
alternatives with potentially lower
costs.
The guidebook contains several
worksheets that are used in completing
the information sheets. Specific
instructions are provided for each
worksheet as well as suggestions
or examples of how the necessary
information may be obtained. To
complete the worksheets, you may
need assistance from the municipal
financial official or the engineering
consultant. The results of the
analysis will help local municipal
officials reach a decision on the
community's capability to finance and
manage the project and also provide
local taxpayers with sufficient
information to allow them to express
their opinions based upon factual
information.
The facilities plan must demonstrate
that the selected alternative is
impl ementable from legal, institu-
tional, financial, and management
standpoints. Therefore, the financial
capability analysis should be
completed, if possible, during the
planning stages of a project and
updated prior to applying for a grant.
The financial capability analysis
should be kept up to date since
several years may have elapsed between
the initial planning of a project and
the award of grant assistance. During
this time the financial condition of a
community may have changed.
7.3.1
ASSURING LOW
COST PROJECTS
FOR SMALLER
COMMUNITIES
Per capita costs for
conventional waste-
water projects are
frequently higher in
smaller communities
(flows less than 1 million gallons per
day) partly because of the size and
distribution of population. In
addition, smaller communities
generally have fewer financial and
management resources from which to
draw. These circumstances make it
critical that low cost (especially
low O&M cost) treatment systems be
selected. Treatment systems with low
costs for operation, maintenance, and
equipment replacement are especially
important for smaller communities
because these costs greatly influence
the total annual costs your community
and its residents will pay for
wastewater facilities. Small sewered
communities must at least consider
land treatment and other low-cost
alternatives, such as facultative
ponds, trickling filters, and
oxidation ditches. Those smaller
communities that are unsewered must
consider onsite systems.
In order to help ensure selection of
an appropriate wastewater treatment
option, the Financial and Management
Capability Policy requires delegated
States to develop and implement a
screening procedure. The purpose of
58
-------
this procedure is to help identify
potential problem projects at an early
stage when they can be more easily
resolved. To assist States in this
effort, EPA has developed suggested
screening system elements as part of
the guidance for implementing the
policy (Appendix K). If your project
has been identified by the screening
procedure as a possible problem
project, your State will work with you
to take a closer look at your project
so that any problems can be analyzed
and resolved.
If the project you are planning
exceeds your community's financial
capability, it may be possible to
reduce its size. One way is to
take a hard look at the population
projections and flow estimates. Be
realistic about estimates of future
growth and wastewater treatment
needs. Also re-evaluate the extent of
sewering. A water conservation
program may reduce wastewater flow and
the size of the proposed treatment
plant. It may also allow continued
use of onsite systems. Another idea
is to construct the facilities in
stages to spread the investment over a
longer time period.
Often there are ways to simplify the
design of the facilities to cut costs
and make operation easier. Make
sure the layout of the plant is as
efficient as possible and eliminate
all nonessential features. Perhaps
laboratory or other facilities, even
plant operators, could be shared with
a neighboring town.
Sometimes the cost to finance a
project can be reduced. Be certain
that all available funding for the
project has been obtained. Some
Federal and State agencies have low
interest loans. To reduce interest
rates, some States have bond banks or
will guarantee local bonds. In some
cases, extending the bond life can
reduce annual costs.
If these measures do not help to
sufficiently reduce costs, additional
alternatives may need to be evaluated.
A combination of approaches may be
needed to solve different wastewater
problems within the community.
Some communities have avoided sewers
altogether by using onsite systems.
Properly installed and maintained,
onsite systems will operate satis-
factorily for 20 years or more where
site conditions are suitable. A
management district can be set up to
oversee O&M. Several different types
of onsite systems have been developed
to operate in situations not suitable
for conventional septic tank systems
such as steep slopes, rocky, or tight
soils and high groundwater.
Alternative sewers should be carefully
considered. Alternative sewers are
smaller in size and are installed at
shallow depths. Since they have no
manholes and fewer joints, much less
rain and groundwater can get into
alternative sewers so treatment plants
can be smaller.
Where conditions are not suitable for
onsite systems, cluster systems can be
used. The most common form uses
alternative sewers to transport septic
tank effluent from several houses to a
common drain field. Treatment can
also be provided by a pond, sand
filter, mound, or land application.
It may also be useful for you to
conduct an operability assessment. An
operability assessment evaluates
operation, maintenance, and replace-
ment requirements of the treatment
59
-------
system in the context of the
community's institutional structure
and its financial and management
capabilities. Such an evaluation can
point to the need for simplifying the
proposed technology, improving the
community's management capability,
or both. Useful information for
conducting such an evaluation can be
found in "Comprehensive Diagnostic
Evaluation and Selected Management
Issues" (EPA 430/9-82-003).
7.4
CAPITAL The project for
FINANCING PLAN which you request
grant assistance may
not be the only project addressed in
your facilities plan (e.g., staged
construction of a larger project that
will satisfy future needs). Plant
expansion, other projects in your
jurisdiction, other facilities plans,
or other non-Federally funded waste-
water treatment projects may represent
future financial obligations to be
borne by your system users. For this
reason, you are encouraged to prepare
a capital financing plan as a part of
your facilities plan which recognizes
the cost relationship between your
proposed project and future wastewater
projects. The capital financing plan
should contain:
the future
treatment
o A projection of
requirements for waste treatment
services within your jurisdiction for
a period up to 10 years;
o A projection of the nature,
extent, timing and costs of future
expansion and reconstruction of
treatment works which will be
necessary to satisfy your future
requirements for waste treatment
services; and
o The specific manner you intend to
use to finance the future expansion
and reconstruction.
7.5
ENVIRONMENTAL Carefully evaluate
EVALUATION the environmental
impacts of principal
alternatives as described in
Section 3.2. Evaluate the adverse and
beneficial, direct and indirect,
short-term and long-term, monetary and
nonmonetary impacts on the natural and
human environment. Identify measures
to mitigate adverse or unavoidable
impacts, and consider the irreversible
and irretrievable commitments of
resources associated with each
principal alternative.
7.6
EVALUATION OF
RELIABILITY
Evaluate each
alternative for its
reliability, i.e.,
ability to meet and maintain effluent
limitations. The selected plan must
be able to consistently meet this
requirement throughout the planning
period.
7.7
EVALUATION OF
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
Include an analysis
of energy require-
ments for each
alternative system
considered in your facilities plan.
The selected plan should reduce
consumption or increase recovery of
energy where cost-effective. Energy
reduction or recovery is one of the
important aspects of I&A technology
and your energy analysis should be
integrated into your consideration of
I&A technology. Where State energy
plans exist, the analysis should also
consider the recommendations of these
plans.
7.8
EVALUATION OF Evaluate alterna-
IMPLEMENTABILITY tives for their
implementability
taking into account legal, institu-
ional and financial constraints.
60
-------
Ensure that all jurisdictions find the
selected plan acceptable and equitable
(Section 8.5). Pay particular
attention to financial management
provisions of intermunicipal
service agreements.
7.9
EVALUATION OF
RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES
Include in your
facilities plan
an analysi s and
description of
potential opportunities for recreation
and open space. Evaluate the
recreational potential of the selected
treatment plant site and collection
system. You should 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.
Show you've considered the recreation
elements of approved Water Quality
Management (WQM) plans. You should
also coordinate with State and
local recreation programs. Additional
information may be found in the State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
or from the National Park Service of
the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Potential recreation benefits
associated with wastewater projects
include:
o Use of interceptor rights-of-way
for running or hiking paths, bicycling
or equestrian trails;
o Use of roadway to facilities for
access to waterways for canoeing,
boating, fishing, or swimming;
o Provision for access to natural
and historic sites for camping,
photography, and appreciation;
o Use of project sites for sports
such as target shooting or field
sports;
o Use of facilities or sites for
educational or information purposes;
and
o Recreational opportunities at
offsite locations such as application
of effluent or sludge to improve other
recreational areas.
Multipurpose projects that include
recreation may also be considered
by coupling facilities planning
activities with recreation planning.
The allowable costs of multipurpose
projects are limited to the cost
effective, single purpose pollution
control project; however, inclusion of
recreational opportunities in the plan
can effectively enhance public support
while not significantly increasing the
local share of project costs.
7.10
COMPARISON OF
ALTERNATIVES
Summarize and
compare the costs,
primary energy
requirements} environmental impacts,
reliability, implementability and
other significant issues of the
principal alternatives. Figure 5 is a
sample of a tabular comparison that
may be used effectively for public
presentations. Where quantification
of these issues is not possible, a
brief description will serve. The
visual display should allow comparison
of alternatives at a glance so it can
be used at public meetings. One
alternative displayed should be the
"no action" alternative.
61
-------
Type of impact Alternatives
?I 1213 IT
Monetary cost, dollars
Capital cost
Annual O&M cost
Total present worth
Cost per household unit
Environmental impact
Cultural Resources
Floodplains and wetlands
Agricultural lands
Coastal zones
Wild and scenic rivers SAMPLE FORMAT
Fish and wildlife
Endangered species
Air quality
Water quality and uses
Noise, odor, aesthetics
Land use
Energy requirements
Recreational opportunity
Reliability
Implementabil ity
Legend:
++ significant beneficial impact
+ minimal beneficial impact
o no impact
- minimal adverse impact
-- significant adverse impact
Figure 5 Comparison of Principal Alternatives
62
-------
You should conduct a midcourse review
with your reviewing agency to ensure
that all alternatives have been
adequately considered, that the
evaluation of the environmental
impacts is adequate and acceptable and
that applicable Federal, State, local,
and public participation requirements
have been met.
7.11
VIEWS OF THE
PUBLIC AND
CONCERNED
INTERESTS
(Section 3.1).
A public participa-
tion program should
be an integral part
of the facilities
planning process
A section or chapter
of the facilities plan should describe
and summarize your public participa-
tion program including typical
comments and responses at public
meetings. Correspondence submitted by
individuals, groups, or agencies
should be appended to the plan. Where
significant issues surface at meetings
or in correspondence, the plan should
indicate the appropriate response or
action taken, justify controversial
findings, or be revised.
EPA recommends holding a public
meeting before the facilities plan is
formally adopted and submitted to your
reviewing agency. The preferred
plan and alternatives should be
presented at the meeting. After the
meeting, local officials may formally
adopt the facilities plan. You should
include a final responsiveness summary
and responses to significant comments
in the final facilities plan.
In addition to the comments from the
public and interest groups, you must
obtain comments concerning your
proposed project from the designated
WQM agency (Section 4.0). These
comments can be obtained through your
State's intergovernmental coordination
procedures (Section 2.3).
Finally, at the time of grant
application it is required that
your State agency certify to EPA
that there has been adequate public
participation based on State and local
statutes during the development of
your project. Ensure that you are
familiar with and have satisfied this
requirement.
63
-------
CHAPTER 8
SELECTED PLAN, DESCRIPTION, AND
IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
8.0
JUSTIFICATION In a brief narrative
AND DESCRIPTION you should summarize
OF SELECTED PLAN why the proposed
plan was selected.
Demonstrate that the plan is cost-
effective and environmentally sound.
Describe the proposed treatment works
and the complete waste treatment
system of which it is a part.
Describe all elements including
service areas, collection sewers,
onsite systems, interceptors, treat-
ment works and ultimate reuse or
disposal of effluent, sludge and
septage. Use maps to show locations
of major components, existing and
proposed, and locations of any
individual systems proposed for
grant assistance. The plan should
clearly identify project segments,
implementing authority and include a
project schedule.
8.1
DESIGN OF
SELECTED PLAN
Include in your
facilities plan
relevant desi gn
parameters to demonstrate that all
major components of the wastewater
treatment and sludge management system
have been included, that the cost
estimate is adequate and reasonable,
and that the facilities can meet
effluent limitations. The level of
detail describing the relevant design
parameters varies from project to
project and depends on the project's
complexity and requirements of the
reviewing agency. For example,
standard package treatment plants may
not require the same degree of detail
as a pure oxygen system with phosphate
removal and sludge incineration.
Discuss the appropriate level with
your project reviewer.
Relevant design parameters should
include a simple tabulation (one or
two pages) of information such as:
o A description of the major
features;
o Unit processes and sizes
including lift stations;
o A schematic flow diagram and
hydraulic profile;
o Provisions for disinfection;
o Sewer lengths and sizes;
o Proposed design criteria
including detention times, overflow
rates, process and equipment loadings
such as air capacity, energy require-
ments, etc., removal efficiencies,
initial design flow, and reserve
capacity; and
o Schedule for completion of design
and construction.
8.2
COST ESTIMATES
FOR SELECTED
PLAN
Your facilities plan
(Section 7.3) is
to include cost
estimates for
design, building, operation and
maintenance (O&M) of the selected
plan. Additionally, it must include
an estimate of total project costs and
average annual charges to customers
(see Appendix K for sample format).
You should also include a statement on
the availability and estimated costs
of sites for the selected plan.
8.3
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS OF
SELECTED PLAN
Describe features of
the selected
plan that conserve,
64
-------
I recover or reduce energy consumption.
For systems that claim innovation on
the basis of energy reduction, the
plan should contain a detailed
energy analysis.
8.4
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF
SELECTED PLAN
The facilities plan
discusses how the
treatment works
will comply with
applicable Federal, State and, local
environmental laws and regulations.
Unless your project has been granted a
Categorical Exclusion (Section 3.2.1),
the facilities plan will describe the
existing environment and relevant
direct and indirect impacts of the
selected plan. Emphasize:
o The selected plan's unavoidable
adverse impacts, especially on
environmentally sensitive areas
including archaeological and historic
sites, freshwater and tidal wetlands,
floodplains, agricultural land, steep
slopes, and other areas;
o The relationship between local
short-term uses of the environment
and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term environmental productivity;
o Irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources; and
o Mitigation of unavoidable adverse
impacts.
The description emphasizes indirect
impacts on environmentally sensitive
areas, present and future actions to
protect these areas, and assures that
interceptors conform with approved
Water Quality Management (WQM) plans
and EPA's objectives for minimizing
indirect impacts on environmentally
sensitive areas.
8.5
ARRANGEMENTS FOR The facilities plan
IMPLEMENTATION demonstrates that
the implementing
authority has the necessary legal
financial, institutional and
managerial resources to ensure the
building, O&M over the useful life of
the project. Where responsibility for
implementation rests with more than
one agency, executed intermunicipal
service agreements (Section 8.5.1)
between agencies are required as
part of the application for grant
assistance.
To describe the arrangements for
implementation adequately, the plan
should:
o Identify each agency,
jurisdiction and its responsibility;
o Demonstrate that each jurisdic-
tion has the ability and authority
under State law (or reasonable
expectation of obtaining such
authority) to finance, design,
construct, acquire access to, operate
and maintain those facilities within
its jurisdiction;
o Identify referendums or public
elections necessary to implement the
plan;
o Include adopted resolutions of
plan acceptance and proposed or
executed intermunicipal service
agreements; and
o Identify jurisdictions that
oppose or have failed to approve the
plan and describe steps necessary to
reach agreement.
The facilities plan should include a
schedule of specific actions to
implement the plan and to meet
65
-------
its.objectives. The dates in the
schedule, if approved by your
reviewing agency, will be included
in your grant agreement and must
correspond to compliance dates
specified in your National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits (if applicable). Resolve
differences that would result in
failure to meet the compliance
schedule, including, if necessary, a
formal request through the reviewing
agency for extension of compliance
dates.
Some capital expenditures could be met
through creative financing techniques
using special improvement districts,
industry assistance to local
governments, or intergovernmental
agreements. The institutional
arrangements undertaken to finance
the project, embodied within
intermunicipal service agreements and
described in your facilities plan,
will ensure that your community has
the necessary resources available to
satisfy your financial responsibility.
If considering the financing technique
of "privatization" (where, for
example, a municipality enters into a
sale/leaseback of its Federally funded
wastewater treatment facility with
a private sector firm or limited
partnership enabling the private
sector to receive depreciation
tax benefits and affording the
municipality the opportunity to
purchase the facility at the end of
the lease period), you should be aware
that Office of Management and Budget
Circular No. A-102 states, in effect,
that partially or fully Federally
financed treatment works cannot be
sold or leased without permission of
the grantor agency where leasing is
treated as a sale for tax purposes.
This approval, which would be given if
the property were no longer needed
for the original purpose, would be
contingent on the grantee reimbursing
the Federal government the percent
of the proceeds the Federal grant
represented of the original costs.
Your description of the financial and
institutional arrangements provides
the project reviewer with a starting
point in an overall financial
assessment. A schedule for marketing
bonds and developing a user charge
system can be developed during
facilities planning. This schedule
may be adjusted as necessary during
subsequent design and building of the
project.
8.5.1
INTERMUNICIPAL
SERVICE
AGREEMENTS
At the time of
Step 3 grant
a p.p 1 i c at i on or
before initiation of
procurement action for building the
project for a Step 2+3 grant, you
must submit executed intermunicipal
service agreements unless waived
by the Regional Administrator or
delegated State. At a minimum, an
intermunicipal service agreement
must:
o Include the basis upon which
costs are allocated between agencies
(e.g., value of existing facilities,
value of land, periodic capital
requirements for expansion, costs for
O&M, and administration);
o Include the formula by which
costs are allocated (e.g., quantity,
strength or rate of flow, or
combinations of these); and
o Describe the manner in which
the cost allocation system will be
administered (e.g., cost accounting
records, management systems, etc.).
66
-------
In addition to these minimum
requirements you must include adequate
financial arrangements and incorporate
appropriate municipal legislative
enactments to enforce the require-
ments for a user charge system,
enactment of a sewer use ordinance
and, where appropriate, implementation
of sewer system rehabilitation.
The requirements for intermunicipal
service agreements may be waived
by the Regional Administrator
or delegated State if you can
demonstrate:
o That such an agreement is already
in place; or
o Evidence of historic service
relationships for water supply,
wastewater, or other services between
the affected agencies regardless of
the existence of formal agreements;
and
o That the financial strength of
the supplier agency is adequate to
continue the project, even if one of
the proposed customer agencies fails
to participate.
8.5.2
CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLIANCE
You are required to
comply with the
Civil Rights Act of
1964 and EPA's implementing regula-
tions (40 CFR Part 7). These
requirements forbid discrimination on
the ground of race, color, or national
origin. Where minority areas are
included in the facilities planning
area, show in the plan that such areas
will be served or excluded from
service only for cost-effectiveness
reasons. Include in your facilities
plan a statement that these
requirements have been met.
8.5.3
OPERATION AND The facilities plan
MAINTENANCE should contain a
REQUIREMENTS brief but accurate
summary of the
personnel, procedures, and budget that
are necessary to operate, maintain,
and manage the proposed treatment
works. While a more detailed draft
plan of operation (Section 12.4) which
includes O&M requirements must
accompany your grant application,
the facilities plan need only to
summarize those elements which
impact costs and management
considerations.
If an existing plant is to be upgraded
or expanded, existing staffing, O&M
policies and budget should be reviewed
and updated as necessary to assure a
sound O&M program. It should be noted
that O&M costs also include funds for
the replacement of equipment required
during the useful life or design life,
whichever is longer, of the project.
In addition, your O&M program should
include routine sewer inspection and
maintenance.
Where a completely new treatment
system will be constructed, a more
detailed O&M discussion should be
included in the facilities plan.
A recommended list of items to include
in your O&M discussion is:
o Annual O&M budget (fixed and
variable costs);
o Staffing (number and
certifications);
o Training;
o Laboratory requirements;
o Maintenance requirements;
67
-------
o Special operating requirements
including cold climate restrictions,
operation under emergency conditions
such as power outage, high flow
(storm) event, chlorine leakage,
etc.; and
o Residuals disposal (sludge,
incinerator ash, etc.).
Although O&M costs (except for
start-up costs) are not allowable
for grant assistance, they must be
included in your cost-effectiveness
analysis and will be the basis for
establishing user charges.
8.5.4
PRETREATMENT
PROGRAM
Where your treatment
facilities serve
or will serve
nonresidential customers (generally
industrial), you may decide or be
required to develop a pretreatment
program in accordance with NPDES
permit program requirements.
Additional information on pretreatment
is included in an overview of the
pretreatment program (Appendix B).
A pretreatment program is intended to
control pollutants from nonresidential
sources. This may include wastes
from publicly or privately owned
municipal water supply facilities.
The objectives of a pretreatment
program are:
o To prevent the introduction into
the treatment plant of pollutants
that will interfere with plant
operation or disposal or use of
municipal sludge;
o To prevent the introduction into
the treatment plant of pollutants that
will pass through the plant into
receiving waters or that will be
otherwise harmful; and
o To protect plant workers' health
and safety.
When a pretreatment program is
necessary, your NPDES discharge permit
will contain a schedule for program
development. The facilities plan
should also include a discussion and
schedule of actions to implement the
program. A complete and approvable
pretreatment program should include
the following:
o A survey that identifies system
user by type and location and the
character and volume of pollutants
discharged (industrial waste survey);
o An evaluation of the legal
authority for control and enforcement
including adequacy of enabling
legislation and selection of mecha-
nisms to be used (e.g., ordinances,
codes);
o A determination of technical and
administrative procedures and
information needed to support develop-
ment of an enforcement mechanism to
ensure compliance with NPDES permit
conditions;
o An evaluation to ensure adequate
resources (funds, equipment, and
personnel) are available to carry out
the pretreatment program;
o The design of a compliance
monitoring and enforcement program;
o A preliminary determination of
monitoring equipment required at
the treatment facilities;
o A determination of tolerance of
the treatment facilities to toxic
pollutants; and
o A preliminary determination of
the municipal facilities' need
for monitoring or analysis of
nonresidential wastes.
68
-------
Certain costs of a municipal pretreat-
ment program are allowable under a
grant awarded for the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities.
The development of an approvable
municipal pretreatment program (40 CFR
403), the purchase of monitoring
equipment, and the construction
of facilities to be used by the
municipality in the pretreatment
program would be allowable costs as
defined in Appendix A (40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart I). The specific cost
elements of your pretreatment
program should be reviewed with your
review agency to determine actual
eligibility.
8.6
LAND ACQUISITION
8.6.1
GENERAL
ACQUISITION
CONSIDERATIONS
As an element
of your cost-
effectiveness
analysis, the
facilities plan will have addressed:
o The most suitable land for the
project (e.g., size, soil conditions,
slope, location);
o The most appropriate method to
secure rights in the land (fee simple,
easement, ownership of some rights,
lease, certain rights for a period of
time, Section 8.6.2).
Acquisition of land, including
easements, should be initiated at
the earliest possible time. With
reviewing agency approval, land
acquisition may be initiated prior to
Step 3 award. If acquisition occurs
without reviewing agency approval,
subsequent claims may be disallowed.
In all cases, the reviewing agency
must determine that applicable
provisions of EPA's regulations
(40 CFR Part 4) implementing the
Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act have been
satisfied.
Your project will be evaluated to
determine if you have or will have
sufficient rights to the project land
and to ensure undisturbed building and
operation of the project for its
useful life. You should include a
cost estimate and proposed schedule
for securing property rights.
For land to be eligible for grant
assistance, it must be an integral
part of the treatment process or
land that will be used for the
ultimate disposal of residuals
(e.g., sludge). All land should be
acquired, option taken or formal
condemnation proceedings begun before
initiating building of the project.
You should use professional staff to
appraise, negotiate or condemn land.
Consider contracting with State or
Federal land acquisition agencies if
you do not have these capabilities.
Use "The Uniform Appraisal Standards
for Federal Land Acquisition" (GPO
052-059-000-20). See Appendix G for
supplemental information.
You should obtain your reviewing
agency's approval that the proposed
purchase price (based on an appraisal,
your record of negotiations or
condemnation proceedings) represents
just compensation for the property.
Costs in excess of just compensa-
tion are unallowable for grant
assistance.
Early land acquisition with prior
reviewing agency approval is
considered a preaward cost and is
eligible for grant participation
in a future grant (Sections 13.2
69
-------
and 15.4.1) providing the land 1s an
Integral part of the treatment process
or will be used for the ultimate
disposal of residuals (e.g., sludge).
The reviewing agency should contract
appraisal review if it does not have
qualified in-house staff. For
eligible land, you should not
negotiate with the landowner before
preparing a written statement of just
compensation describing the basis
upon which the offer price has been
established and prior to receiving the
reviewing agency's comments on the
price to be offered. Generally, the
offer price should be consistent
with the amount established as just
compensation. Some modest increase
above the appraised value may be paid
to avoid the cost, time and public
relations problems involved with
condemnation if approved by your
reviewing agency.
Acquisitions of existing treatment
works are generally ineligible for
grant funding because they usually do
not provide new pollution control
benefits (i.e., pollution control
services that are additional to those
being provided before grant award).
Conversely, the upgrade, expansion, or
rehabilitation of a project that
includes an acquisition does provide
such benefits and, thus the upgrade,
expansion or rehabilitation portion
may be eligible although the
acquisition portion is not. An
example of an eligible acquisition
would be a municipality's purchase of
demonstrated excess treatment works
capacity that was built without
Federal funds and provides new
pollution control benefits.
8.6.2
"NO COST
ARRANGEMENTS"
Acquisition of land
for some purposes
such as sludge or
effluent application may not be
necessary; only the right to use the
land for this purpose needs to be
secured. This can be done under no
cost arrangements with a group of
farmers so that the agricultural
benefits from the effluent or sludge
eliminate the need for rental or
lease fees. Carefully scheduled
intermittent sludge and effluent
application arrangements of this
nature can provide for disposal, but
the value of the land is not allowable
for grant participation because the
community does not actually acquire
any interest in the property itself.
8.6.3
ACQUISITION Certain land costs
METHOD such as lease,
easement or fee
simple purchase are allowable for
grant participation. The method
of acquisition depends on cost
effectiveness, public acceptability,
feasibility and local circumstances.
A combination of public and private
land ownership may be the best
solution, i.e., the land required for
preapplication treatment and seasonal
storage might be publicly owned, while
irrigated land could be leased from a
farmer.
You may use your own property
management standards and procedures
for land that has been acquired in
part or wholly with grant funds
as long as they meet the minimum
provisions of EPA's regulations.
The sale or use of land for purposes
other than those specified in the
grant agreement is governed by EPA
regulations 40 CFR Part 30. Record
the government's interest in the title
to the property.
Your lease or easement should contain
conditions such as:
70
-------
o. Limiting the purpose to land
application of effluent or sludge
management and complementary purposes;
o Waiving the landowner's right to
restoration at the termination of
the lease/easement. (The Federal
government cannot be responsible for
removing irrigation systems, draining
and filling ponds, etc.);
o Landowner agreeing to apply a
specified quantity of the community's
wastewater or sludge to his land for a
specified time period;
o Providing these conditions for
the useful life of the project; and
o Providing for your full recovery
of damages in the event of premature
lease termination.
A copy of the proposed leasing
agreement (contract) and other
supporting materials should be
presented in your facilities plan.
8.6.4
ALLOWABLE
COSTS
LAND Land costs allowable
for grant assistance
include:
o A reasonable amount of land
including irregularities in applica-
tion patterns, buffer areas, berms,
dikes and similar uses where land i's
an integral part of the treatment
process or used for the ultimate
disposal of residuals; for example, to
minimize the amount of land needed,
sludge should be applied at the
minimum safe rate (generally not less
than 5 dry tons per acre per year);
o Land required for the composting
of sludge including its curing and
temporary storage (if a program for
use of the compost has been approved);
o A soil absorption system for a
group of two or more homes provided
that the municipality has complete
ownership and beneficial use of the
land;
o Ponds constructed specifically
for temporary storage of treated
wastewater prior to land application
to meet seasonal imbalances between
wastewater supply and application
schedules. The total land area of
the pond or cell constructed for
combination treatment and storage
purposes is allowable for grant
funding if the storage volume is
greater than the treatment volume.
Otherwise, the grant fundable area
will be determined by the ratio of
the storage volume to the total volume
of the pond (i.e., storage treatment
volume);
o Storage volume is that portion of
a pond or cell which retains water
prior to the water's application to
the land; and
o Treatment volume is that portion
of a pond or cell specifically
designed for biological stabilization
of the wastewater.
Unallowable land costs including
existing treatment works are discussed
in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 35
Subpart I of the regulations.
Revenue from the sale of crops grown
on land purchased or leased under the
grant agreement is to be used to
offset the costs of O&M with a
proportionate reduction in all user
charges.
71
-------
CHAPTER 9
REVIEW OF FACILITIES PLANS
9.0
REVIEW AND
EVALUATION
The timing of
review, approval,
and certification of
facilities plans will vary from
State to State. Although State
certification that a facilities plan
satisfies all regulatory requirements
is not required until the submission
by the State to EPA of a Step 3
grant application, you are strongly
encouraged to have your project
reviewer evaluate your facilities plan
before beginning project design. This
evaluation will help ensure that
all Federal and State statutory
requirements are satisfied and that
the project to be designed will
meet the prerequisites for grant
assistance. You are reminded that the
environmental review (Section 9.2.2)
must be completed before submission
of any application. For rural
communities of less than 10,000
population, the draft facilities
plan should be submitted to the
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for
comments if they will be asked to
participate in funding the project.
In addition to your reviewing agency's
evaluation, solicit comments on your
completed facilities plan from the
appropriate agencies including the
Water Quality Management (WQM) agency,
if any. Agency review procedures and
corresponding determinations of
facilities plans are discussed in
Section 9.2.
9.1
SUMMARY
CHECKLIST
Summarized below are
the major items
considered during
facilities planning.
Project Management
o Prepare plan of study;
o Conduct preplanning meeting with
reviewing agency;
o Arrange for local funds and
advance of grant allowance as
appropriate;
o Document needs;
o Organize project team and
designate municipal project manager;
o Prepare public participation
program;
o Coordinate with WQM agency if
applicable;
Facilities Plan
o Documentation of project need;
o Population, flow, and loading
forecasts;
o Infiltration/inflow analysis, if
applicable;
o Use of generic plan for small
communities if applicable;
o Effluent limitations;
o Alternatives development:
- Land application;
- Small alternative wastewater
systems;
- Appropriate technologies for
small communities;
- Centralized treatment;
- Upgrading and optimal
operation of the existing
system;
72
-------
- Innovative and alternative
technology;
- Sludge use or disposal;
- No action;
o Financial capability analysis;
o Environmental evaluation of
alternatives;
o Alternatives evaluation based on:
- Costs and financial impact;
- Engineering feasibility;
- Environmental impacts;
- Public acceptance;
- Implementability;
- Energy/water conservation;
o Public participation program;
o Pretreatment;
o Intermunicipal service
agreements;
Facilities Plan review by
o WQM agency;
o State agency;
Project Administration:
o Filing system;
o Accounting records;
o Force account.
9.2
STATE AGENCY
REVIEW
While review and
certification by the
State of your
completed facilities plan is not
required until submission of your
application, you are encouraged
to request such a review prior to
undertaking project design. In order
for you to understand the actions
required on the part of the State and
the decisions to be made by EPA
concerning the review and approval
of your facilities plan, a brief
description of these actions is
provided below. The facilities
plan, along with comments from the
appropriate WQM agency and interested
State and local agencies, is submitted
and reviewed by your State agency.
The State will contact you for
additional information, clarifica-
tion or suggestions for change if
appropriate. Upon resolution of any
problems the State reviewing agency
will be in a position to certify
that:
o There has been adequate public
participation based on State and local
statutes;
o Within the scope of authority
delegated to the State by EPA,
the applicable Federal requirements
for facilities planning have been met
(see Section 13.1 for a complete
listing of application requirements).
9.2.1
ADVANCED
TREATMENT
REVIEW
Where effluent
limitations require
additional treatment
beyond secondary and
where the incremental capital cost
of the advanced treatment (AT)
facility is greater than $3 million,
EPA headquarters will conduct the
review based in part on information
submitted by the State or EPA regional
office. (See Appendix A for review of
policy.)
For projects with incremental capital
costs of $3 million or less, the State
or EPA regional office will conduct
the review. The review must be
completed prior to submitting a Step 3
grant application to EPA or the
delegated State.
73
-------
9.2.2
EPA ACTIONS An application for
UNDER NEPA grant assistance
may be considered only after the
Regional Administrator has completed
the appropriate environmental document
(40 CFR Part 6). If your project was
not issued a Categorical Exclusion,
EPA will apply the criteria under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) to determine whether an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
or more commonly, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FNSI) should
be prepared (Section 3.2.1).
decision by EPA is based on:
The
o Your completed facilities plan
where review of the facilities
plan has not been delegated to the
State; or
o The State's preliminary
environmental assessment where the
State has been delegated authority for
facilities plan review; and
o Revised environmental analysis to
reflect significant project changes
made during design; and
o Other documentation considered
necessary by EPA to allow a determina-
tion.
If an EIS is not warranted, EPA
will prepare and publish for public
comment a FNSI. The decision not to
prepare an EIS will be supported by an
environmental assessment incorporated
into or attached to the FNSI.
If EPA determines that significant
adverse impacts which cannot be
satisfactorily mitigated will result
from your project, you will be
notified prior to the publication in
the Federal Register of a notice of
intent to prepare an EIS. Notices of
record of decision may include the
results of the intergovernmental
coordination review (Section 2.3).
EPA will prepare the EIS either by
direct use of agency staff, or by
contract with a consultant. When the
need for an EIS is determined before
completion of facilities planning, the
joint EIS/EID approach can be used
(Section 3.2.13).
The EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 6)
outline detailed procedures and
criteria to be followed in the
process of EIS preparation. Grant
assistance may not be awarded until a
a final EIS has been prepared and all
regulatory requirements have been
met. However, action may continue on
discrete segments of the project
before the environmental review is
complete, under certain conditions
(Section 13.2).
74
-------
PART II. DESIGN
CHAPTER 10
PREDESIGN
10.0
PREDESIGN A predesign
CONFERENCE conference with your
reviewing agency and
your design team after facilities plan
approval, while not required, is
strongly recommended. When Farmers
Home Administration (FmHA) or other
sources are being considered as
funding sources for the local
share, their representation at this
conference is recommended (Appendix
F). The predesign conference will
provide an opportunity to review
Federal and supplementary State
administrative, technical, and
environmental requirements for design
as well as other grant application
requirements. Examples of other
requirements which might be discussed
include:
o Field testing of innovative or
alternative technology designs
(Section 10.1);
o Value engineering review
(Section 12.1);
o Future funding;
o Necessary permits;
o User charge system and sewer use
ordinance (Sections 12.2 and 12.3);
o Timing and dollar amount of grant
assistance (Section 13.5);
o Plan of operation (Section 12.4);
o Land acquisition (Section 8.6);
o Intermunicipal service agreements
(Section 8.5.1);
o Pretreatment (Section 8.5.4);
o Reviewing agency's environmental
review of project (Section 9.2);
o Infiltration/inflow investigation
(Section 5.4);
o Combination Step 2+3 grant
(Introduction-Managing Your Project,
Section 13.2).
Prior to the conference you may wish
to prepare a brief description of the
activities you will perform during the
design phase of your project. The
description could be similar to the
plan of study (Section 2.2) and
address milestones, schedule and
other aspects of your project.
One aspect of project design which
should be clarified concerns the level
of detail of the design work to be
submitted to your reviewing agency.
For example, some architect/engineers
prepare design engineering reports
which show the assumptions and
calculations used to size various
components of the treatment works.
Items such as surface settling rates,
weir overflow rates, detention times,
pump system head curves, volume of
various tanks, etc., are very often
included in these reports. The
reviewing agency may or may not wish
to review the assumptions, design
criteria and calculations prior to the
preparation of the drawings. In any
case, prudent project management
suggests that a predesign conference
take place and that all significant
project design criteria be reviewed.
10.1
10.1*
FIELD TESTING OF Field testing of a
INNOVATIVE OR proposed innovative
ALTERNATIVE (I&A) technology
TECHNOLOGY project is intended
75
-------
to provide an additional increment of
verification of its performance
capability under the circumstances of
use.
The costs associated with field
testing of proposed innovative or
alternative projects can be allowable
for grant participation as a preaward
cost (if approved by your reviewing
agency) or as a separate grant. A
separate field test grant may be made
at any time. Approval of preaward
costs for a field test should be
scheduled to be consistent with
construction award. In some cases,
field testing may require the
construction, lease, or use of
relatively large structures. Discuss
this aspect with your project
reviewer, and ensure that there is
agreement before proceeding.
Applicants proposing field testing
should provide a detailed explana-
tion of why testing is required.
Justification may be based on concepts
such as:
o Reducing the element of risk;
o Increasing confidence in design
criteria and/or performance standards;
o Substantiating projections of
cost or energy savings or significant
environmental or conservation
benefits, when compared with
conventional technology.
The size of a field testing facility
may range from pilot to full scale and
should be determined by considering
the following items:
o Principal components sized such
that physical, chemical or biological
processes are accurately simulated;
o Process variables normally
expected in full-scale application
are simulated;
o Variations in influent
characteristics which will
significantly affect performance in
full-scale application are anticipated
and simulated;
o Duration of testing will ensure
process equilibrium and allow adequate
forecasting of the service life for
unique equipment;
o Full control of all major process
variables including side streams and
need for process additives;
o Basic process safety,
environmental and health risks
evaluated and found to be within
acceptable limits.
A program of field testing should
reflect practical and efficient
use of existing facilities or newly
constructed facilities. Elements of
project design that may be field
tested include portions of projects
that potentially qualify as innovative
or alternative (I or A) technology
based on the evaluation in your
facilities plan and include complete
systems, unit processes, proprietary
equipment and devices or modifications
and improvements of existing
technology.
When the field test is to collect
and evaluate actual environmental
measurements or data, your field
test program must include a quality
assurance program in accordance with
EPA regulations (Section 4.4).
A final design report on the field
testing program must be prepared
and submitted to the Regional
76
-------
Administrator and the reviewing
agency. The report should contain
information such as the procedures,
cost, results and conclusions of the
field testing, quality assurance
requirements, if necessary, or any
other information which the reviewing
agency requires. Field testing should
not be considered where its use
would delay construction of needed
facilities beyond dates necessary for
compliance with NPDES permit schedules
or approved extensions.
A copy of the final report on the
results obtained from the field
testing program should also be
submitted to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Water
Program Operations, Washington, D. C.,
for information purposes only.
CHAPTER 11
DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSIDERATIONS
11.0
DESIGN AND Treatment works are
ADMINISTRATIVE designed by an
CONSIDERATIONS architect engineer
(A/E) registered in
the State in which the project is
to be constructed. In designing
treatment works the A/E will employ
sound design principles and place his
seal on the construction drawings and
specifications. In addition, the A/E
will employ State design criteria
where applicable. However, based on
past experiences and applicable
Federal statutes, EPA has established
several basic policies concerning
the design of treatment works and
administrative requirements that are
to be included in the construction
drawings and specifications.
Wastewater treatment works should be
designed to provide requisite and
adequate facilities in an archi-
tectural style and form which is in
harmony with its natural surroundings.
When appropriate, specific attentions
should be paid to the design features
of facilities that are in close
proximity to other buildings,
incorporating into such designs
qualities which reflect the regional
architectural traditions of that part
of the nation in which the facilities
are located. Designs should adhere
to sound construction practice
and utilize materials, methods and
equipment of proven dependability.
Buildings should be economical
to build, operate, and maintain,
and should be accessible to the
handicapped (Section 11.1.21).
77
-------
11.1
DESIGN The following
CONSIDERATIONS sections set forth
EPA's policies
concerning the design of treatment
works. These policies are not
complete design standards and should
be used only to supplement State
standards.
11.1.1
PRETREATMENT AND Pretreatment in the
NPDES PERMIT context used
in this book i s
directed only to nonresidential
sources of wastes discharged into your
treatment system. The objectives of
pretreatment are to prevent the
introduction of pollutants which may
pass through or interfere with your
treatment process or contaminate
your effluent and/or sludge, thereby
limiting your options. Failure to
attain the objectives may lead to a
violation of your National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. During facilities planning
you should have had preliminary
discussions with your reviewing
agency concerning your NPDES permit
and your pretreatment requirements
(Section 8.5.4). If your project will
treat wastes from nonresidential
sources, it is recommended that you
determine from your project reviewer
the necessary actions to satisfy
pretreatment requirements.
11.1.2
WET AND DRY WELL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Decomposition of
wa stewater can
generate explosive
gases. In addition, volatile
products, such as gasoline or
industrial solvents, may be
inadvertently or illegally introduced
into the sewerage system. Where
pumping is necessary, wastewater is
generally stored for a relatively
short time in a holding tank called a
wet wel 1, where sewage gas or other
volatiles may accumulate. The waste-
water remains in the wet well until a
control signal turns the pumps on
and lowers the liquid level to a
predetermined elevation. Pumps,
motors, and electrical equipment are
sometimes located in the wet well
and may present an ignition source if
explosive gases are present.
Your design should take this hazard
into account and include features to
preclude the possibility of an explo-
sion as well as possible injury of
workers due to the inhalation of
potentially toxic gases. Equipment
located in wet and dry wells should be
designed to minimize the potential for
explosion, and areas subject to
buildup of gases should be venti-
lated. Explosion proof classification
of wet and dry wells as Class I and
either Division 1 or 2 (National
Electrical Code) should be made on a
case-by-case basis and depends on the
type of sewer system, the probability
of hazardous gases being present, and
the type of ventilation used.
Strict enforcement of the sewer use
ordinance and the development of
specific contingency plans (included
in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
manual) to combat accidental or
illegal discharge of compounds is
encouraged. Guidance containing good
engineering practice for design of
wet and dry wells is contained in
Appendix H of this book.
11.1.3
USE OF MERCURY
SEALS
Mercury is a toxic
and hazardous
substance. It
should be used with extreme care in
trickling filter flow distributors and
78
-------
comminutor seals. Problems with
conversion of older trickling filter
rotary distributors from mercury
seals to mechanical seals may
require special consideration. If it
is anticipated that significant
additional cost, or operating or
maintenance problems associated with
such conversions will arise, you
should consult with your project
reviewer. It may be determined after
consultation and evaluation of other
alternatives that continued use of
mercury seals is the best solution.
To prevent violation of Section 307(a)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) you
should submit a written request for
use of mercury seals to your reviewing
agency for approval. This request
should address the following issues:
o Agreement to comply with all
applicable provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
especially Subtitle C regulations
pertaining to the management of
sludges with concentrations of mercury
that cause the sludge to be classified
as hazardous (Section 11.1.7);
o Acknowledgement that you can be
held liable for any damages related to
the discharge of mercury contaminated
effluent or sludge;
o Establishment of a mercury spill
monitoring program including an annual
mercury inventory;
o Establishment of an emergency
response program which provides
for the safe disposal of effluent
and/or sludge contaminated with
mercury and a program for immediately
notifying all downstream water users
of possible mercury contamination;
o Modification of your NPDES permit
to identify a potential mercury
contamination hazard.
Mercury float switches have been used
in treatment works for several years
with no reported failure where mercury
was discharged to the wastewater. For
that reason, and since mercury float
switches contain small amounts of
mercury (usually less than 15 grams),
those switches and other equipment
containing similarly small quantities
of mercury may be used in treatment
works. It is anticipated that care
will be exercised when specifying
equipment using small amounts of
mercury, and consideration will be
given to provisions for assuring
self-containment, and corrosion
resistance.
Reviewing agencies may specify
additional requirements for assuring
that applicable provisions for
use of mercury have been addressed
before construction drawings and
specifications are approved.
11.1.4
SHELLFISH WATERS If your project
proposes to dis-
charge effluent into shellfish-growing
waters, the environmental impacts will
have been evaluated in your facilities
plan and by your reviewing agency.
The environmental evaluation in all
likelihood will have recommended
measures to minimize the adverse
impacts of the discharge upon shell-
fish. These recommendations,should be
carefully considered during project
design. However, in addition to
these recommendations the following
considerations should be taken into
account during the design phase of
your project.
Equipment, unit processes and the
overall treatment process should be
designed to provide a Reliability
Class I (Section 11.1.14). In
general, this reliability class
79
-------
defines the redundancy of system
components or provision for adequate
capacity when one component or unit
process is out of service.
Discharge in close proximity to
shellfish harvesting areas should be
avoided wherever possible. State
environmental protection authorities
and shellfish regulatory agencies
should be contacted for further design
requirements if this is unavoidable.
11.1.5
DISINFECTION Disinfection of
wastewater prior to
discharge has long been practiced
and, in many cases, is required by
State agencies to protect public
health. Chiorination of effluent has
been, and continues to be, the most
widely used method of disinfection.
Because of the potential toxic effects
of chlorination on aquatic wildlife,
chlorination plus dechlorination or
alternative disinfection methods such
as ozonation or ultraviolet radiation
or other cost-effective disinfection
techniques should be considered for
sensitive areas.
If the disinfection requirements are
not addressed in the draft NPDES
permit for the treatment facility, the
issue should have been resolved during
facility planning. However, if the
issue was not resolved at that time,
it should be discussed with your State
agency at the predesign conference.
11.1.6
CHLORINATION
SYSTEMS USING
GASEOUS CHLORINE
Where disinfection
is required
(Section 11.1.5) and
chlorination with
gaseous chlorine has been selected,
several considerations should be
taken into account during design.
While chlorination is an effective
disinfectant, it also presents
potentially dangerous conditions when
used improperly or accidentally
leaked. In the worst case chlorine
can cause death by suffocation or
severe burns when brought in contact
with skin and eyes. When combined
with small quantities of water,
chlorine can become highly corrosive.
Therefore, chlorination systems should
be designed to prevent chlorine leaks,
to ensure the quick and safe handling
of any chlorine leaks, and to minimize
operator and local resident exposure.
The discussion below represents EPA's
technical guidance and the basis
for minimum adequacy in safety
considerations and should be used to
supplement (not replace) other safety
requirements and regulations such as
those published by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). This section deals with
design considerations and represents
good engineering practice.
Design Considerations
o Where chlorine or chlorination
equipment is stored or installed in a
building used for other purposes, a
gas-tight partition should separate
the chlorination room from.other parts
of the building, doors should be
equipped with panic hardware and open
to the outside at ground level and
storage and feed areas should be
separated.
o A clear-glass, gas-tight window
should be installed in the exterior
door or interior wall of the chlorina-
tion room to permit viewing without
entering the room.
o Chlorination rooms should be
heated to 50°F and the chlorination
80
-------
feed equipment room 5-10°F higher;
containers should be shielded from
direct sunlight to avoid overheating
above 140°F and should be stored with
level rails or cradles designed for
this purpose.
o Forced mechanical ventilation
should provide a complete air change
every 4 minutes with inlets and
outlets at opposite ends of the room;
exhaust outlets should be at floor
level since chlorine gas is heavier
than air.
o Exhaust equipment should be
activated by external light switches
or other automatic systems such as
door activated mechanisms.
o Emergency showers and eye
baths should be located external
to, but close by, the chlorination
room.
o An automatic chlorine detection
system should be provided for
facilities with capacity of 1 million
gallons per day (mgd) or more and
activate sound alarms, flashing
lights, notification to operator's
area or police department, or other
measures to ensure emergency response.
Smaller capacity treatment facilities
should also consider use of detention
and alarm systems where the benefits
warrant the additional cost.
O&M Design Considerations
o Rail delivery of chlorine is to
comply with Department of Transporta-
tion regulations (49 CFR 174.560) and,
in general, provide dead-end sidings
used only for chlorine delivery.
o Chlorine cylinders should be
lifted with forklift trucks and other
hoisting equipment equipped with
special cradles or carriers designed
for such purposes; chains, rope
slings, or magnetic hoists should
never be used.
o Tank barge unloading is to
comply with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Coast Guard regulations.
o One-ton cylinders should be
stored on cradles or pairs of level
rails. One hundred and 150-pound
cylinders should be secured with
safety chains and should never be
piled on top of one another, nor
stored with other compressed gases;
empty containers should be tagged
appropriately and stored separately
from full cylinders; and cylinder
emergency repair kits should be
readily available.
o Self-contained positive pressure
headgear with self-contained
compressed air supply and full face
piece should be located away from
areas likely to be contaminated, but
should be convenient and available for
emergency use; additional (spare) air
supply cylinders should be provided;
and, routine training, inspection and
cleaning of emergency equipment should
also be provided.
o Piping and valves in chlorine
rooms should be color coded and
labeled.
11.1.7
CHEMICAL STORAGE
AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
All chemicals should
be stored and
curbed with pro-
visions to hold the
entire volume of chemical material in
the event of an accidental spill. In
addition, adequate safety protection
gear is to be provided for plant
disposal of chemicals; hazardous
materials may be subject to the
provisions of the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
Toxic Substances Control Act.
81
-------
Sewage Sludge
The storage, transport, and disposal
of sewage sludge may be subjected to
the hazardous waste regulations
implementing the RCRA (Section 6.7).
Regulatory agencies have generally
not classified sewage sludge as a
hazardous waste. Rather, it is up to
each municipality to determine if its
sludge is hazardous based on the types
of industrial waste discharged into
the system or by laboratory testing if
deemed necessary. The characteristics
of a hazardous waste include:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
and extraction procedure (EP)
toxicity. In general, the charac-
teristic most likely to cause a sludge
to be hazardous would be the toxicity
level as determined by the EP test
(40 CFR Part 261).
If a municipal sludge is hazardous,
the municipality must obtain a
hazardous waste identification number
(40 CFR Part 261) and may need a
permit to treat, store, or dispose of
sludge for volumes greater than
1,000 kg (455 pounds) per month.
A publicly owned treatment works which
accepts hazardous waste for treatment
is deemed to have a RCRA permit
("Permits by Rule" (40 CFR 270.60))
if it meets the following conditions:
- Compliance with its NPDES permit;
- Compliance with notification,
recordkeeping, and report
requirements of 40 CFR Part
264;
- Compliance with applicable
pretreatment requirements (40 CFR
Part 403).
The results of the pretreatment
studies conducted during or after
facilities planning or the require-
ments of the NPDES permit program may
require nonresidential dischargers to
pretreat their wastes, eliminating
those chemicals which could cause your
sludge to be classified as hazardous.
If it is possible that your sludge
may be classified as a hazardous
waste, you should contact your
reviewing agency during design to
initiate procedures for obtaining
a permit as a generator, storer,
transporter, and disposer of hazardous
wastes.
11.1.8
SAFETY The specifications
will require
contractor compliance with OSHA's
regulations and applicable State
requirements. In addition, the
specific design considerations
for chlorine systems, chemical
storage and handling, and wet well
classifications as described in
earlier sections should be taken into
consideration. A comprehensive
ongoing safety program during
construction and treatment plant
operation should be developed.
11.1.9
BYPASSING OF
SEWAGE
Avoid bypassing of
flows from sewers
or treatment
facilities during construction
except where absolutely essential
and with specific approval from your
reviewing agency. Eliminate existing
bypasses and include provision in new
facilities for temporary storage and
treatment of all flows. Any bypassing
to the receiving stream can only be
authorized by the NPDES permit.
11.1.10
PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY
Use State-approved
backflow preventers
to protect public
82
-------
water supplies from the possibility of
contamination.
11.1.11
VENTILATION Adequate ventilation
should be provided
to eliminate hazardous working
conditions. Specific requirements
for chlorine systems and wet/dry wells
are given in Sections 11.1.2 and
11.1.6 of this book. Adequate
ventilation should also be considered
for chemical storage areas, buildings,
laboratories, enclosed structures, and
sludge handling and digestion areas.
11.1.12
LABORATORY
FACILITIES
Laboratory facili-
ties should be
adequate to conduct
sampling and testing required to
properly control the treatment
process, and to provide the report
data required by the NPDES permit or
reviewing agency. Alternatively,
provision may be made for testing
by commercial laboratories,
universities or other facilities
equipped to perform the necessary
tests.
11.1.13
EMERGENCY ALARMS Emergency alarms
should be provided
to alert operators or other officials
of malfunctions in system components.
Highest priority should be provided
to systems which endanger operator
or public safety or cause a complete
system failure resulting in
discharge of inadequately treated
sewage.
11.1.14
EQUIPMENT AND
MATERIALS
It is important
that you provide
information to your
A/E to ensure compliance with EPA
procurement regulations (40 CFR
Part 33) for preparation of specifi-
cations, selection of equipment and
materials, and other related items.
Nonrestrictive Specifications
Specifications must be written to
encourage maximum, free and open
competition. Specifications are
not to contain proprietary,
exclusionary or discriminatory
requirements for structures,
materials, equipment or processes
other than those based on performance
with two exceptions:
o Where it is necessary to provide
for interchangeable ity of parts of
equipment;
o Where it is necessary to test or
demonstrate or promote a specific
thing (for example, innovative
technology or techniques).
When in your judgment it is
impractical or uneconomical to make a
clear and accurate description of the
technical requirements, a "brand name
or equal" description may be used as a
means to define the performance or
minimum salient requirements. In so
doing, you need not establish the
existence of any source other than
the brand or source so named. You
must clearly state in the specifica-
tions the salient requirements of the
named brand which must be met by the
offerers.
With regard to materials such as pipe
or chemical grout, it is not mandatory
that two or more types of material
be specified. In general, it is
preferable to use performance specifi-
cations for materials based upon
accepted nationally-known standards.
In the case of pipe, for example,
83
-------
these standards may be American Water
Works Association, American Society of
Testing and Materials, or Federal
specifications and standards.
If it is necessary to use a restric-
tive specification which reflects
minimum essential performance needs,
you should justify its use in writing
to the reviewing agency prior to
the issuance of the specifications
and be prepared to defend your
justification in the event of a
protest (Section 16.11).
Noncompetitive Procurement
Noncompetitive negotiation is allowed
when it can be demonstrated that a
particular technology is unproven and
has a high risk associated with it,
and the reviewing agency approves
the noncompetitive procurement.
Noncompetitive negotiation requires
the submission of a cost analysis.
The analysis includes a review of
direct costs (materials, labor, etc.),
indirect costs (overhead, general, and
administrative expenses), and profit.
Costs are typically subject to audit.
Qualification of Major Items
of Equipment
The qualification of major items of
equipment before receipt of bids for
construction is optional. This
procedure may be used to ease the
administrative burden of determining
responsive, responsible suppliers on
equipment. In all cases, the equip-
ment furnished must comply with the
specifications and qualified suppliers
may be rejected as nonresponsive on
the basis of subsequently furnished
information.
The A/E prepares a qualification
information package which contains
enough specific detail regarding
performance and quality to assure that
equipment suppliers will thoroughly
understand what is required. Adequate
advertisement (30 days minimum or as
required by State law) or direct
contact is made with new and
established manufacturers, small,
minority and women's business
enterprises to ensure each has an
opportunity to compete. Date, time,
and place of qualification information
are given in advertisements and direct
contacts.
Evaluation of the qualification
submittals should be made by the A/E
and reported to you. All proposers
are notified of their status.
Protests, if any, should be handled in
accordance with the procurement
regulations (Section 16.11).
Equipment and Process Compatibility
Recognizing the requirements for free
and open competition, the resulting
uncertainty of equipment selection and
its incorporation into the treatment
system, construction drawings and
specifications should be reviewed
to ensure equipment and process
compatibility. In many cases, shop
drawings from successful suppliers
will be insufficient to ensure
compatibility of operation and control
of an integrated total treatment
system. It is, therefore, essential
that the A/E thoroughly reviews unit
process, interfaces with respect to
mainstream process performance charac-
teristics and control, and the impact
of sidestream and overall system
controllability.
Attention should be given to the
adequacy of equipment and material
warranties and guaranties to support
the intended performance of unit
processes and overall treatment
objectives.
84
-------
Material and Storage of Equipment
Materials and equipment should be
properly stored at the construction
site. The specifications should
include a provision directing
contractors to obtain and implement
storage procedures as recommended by
the manufacturer.
Reliability
Your publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) is expected to adhere to its
monthly, weekly, and daily permit
limits. Therefore, your treatment
facilities, including sludge handling
systems, should be designed,
constructed, and operated to ensure
reliable total system performance over
the life of the project as necessary
to:
o Protect public health;
o Achieve water quality and
pollution control objectives for
both surface and groundwater;
o Prevent environmental damage.
Design practices necessary to ensure
reliable performance should be cost-
effective.
Reliability can be designed into a
project by one of two methods: (1) a
separate analysis of risks, costs and
benefits or (2) the use of generally
recognized criteria, such as State
standards or the suggested design
features described in this chapter.
Your A/E generally will select the
most appropriate method.
In the first method, determination of
the level of reliability required
should consider:
o Total cost including capital
cost, O&M costs and the cost of
failure (if this can be costed) times
the probability of failure;
o Size and relative contribution
of excessive wastewater pollutant
loadings, compared to uncontrolled
sources (e.g., nonpoint source
pollutant loadings);
o Magnitude, duration and frequency
of excessive pollutant loadings in
comparison to receiving water quality
and assimilative capacity;
o Stability or persistence of
pollutant in the receiving waters.
These factors identify and quantify
the consequences of failure as the
basis for design levels of total
system reliability.
In the second method, techniques are
employed to designate surface or
groundwaters by their use and to
select a corresponding treatment level
and class of reliability for the
treatment facilities. Treatment
levels are defined in "Alternative
Waste Management Techniques for
Best Practicable Waste Treatment"
(Section 6.4) with the greatest level
of treatment given to surface waters
used for public drinking water supply,
water contact recreation, shellfish,
and fisheries.
The reliability class for treatment
facilities is designated based
on the use of the receiving waters and
the probable adverse impact of
inadequately treated discharge on
them. Reliability classes may be:
o Class I - treatment works which
discharge into navigable waters that
could be permanently or unacceptably
damaged by effluent which is degraded
85
-------
in quality for only a few hours
(e.g.*, discharges near drinking water
sources, into shellfish waters or
in close proximity to areas used for
contact sports);
o Class II - treatment works which
discharge into navigable waters
that would not be permanently or
unacceptably damaged by short-term
effluent quality degradation but could
be damaged by continued (several
days) effluent quality degradation
(e.g., discharges into recreational
waters);
o Class III - treatment works not
otherwise designated as Class I or II.
Each class is broadly defined for each
of the three major systems within a
treatment facility: (1) wastewater
treatment system, (2) sludge handling
and disposal system, and (3) electric
power system. For each of the three
major systems, recommendations
common to each class and component
backup recommendations for each
separate class are summarized in
Tables 1, 2, and 3.
These recommendations should be
confirmed with your reviewing
agency to ascertain if your State
requirements are more stringent.
11.1.15
LAND APPLICATION The design of land
SYSTEMS application systems
for wastewater and
sludge should be based on:
o "Process Design Manual, Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater"
(EPA 625/1-81-013);
o "Design Manual, Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems" (EPA
625/1-80-012);
o "Process Design Manual for Sludge
Treatment and Disposal" (EPA 625/1-
79-011);
o "Costs of Wastewater Treatment by
Land Application" (EPA 430/9-75-003 -
Revised 1979);
o "Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual"
(EPA 430/9-78-009);
o "Process Design Manual, Land
Application of Municipal Sludge"
(EPA 625/1-83-016).
The specifications should also address
protection of soil integrity during
construction. For example, onsite
system trench construction for the
soil absorption system should not take
place during wet weather where clays
are present, equipment travel should
avoid infiltrative surfaces and
special attention should be given
to grade, bedding, and backfill
materials. For land treatment
systems, the land surface should be
disturbed as little as possible or
restoration techniques (plowing,
discing) should be employed wherever
necessary. Limitations on the size
and weight of the construction
equipment and climatic conditions
during which construction may not
take place should be included in
the specifications, especially for
land-based systems.
11.1.16
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
During the environ-
mental evaluation
of your project in
the facilities planning stage, the
potential for soil erosion and
sediment buildup in water bodies,
wetlands or floodplains was con-
sidered. In all likelihood, the
environmental information document
86
-------
Table 1 Wastewater Treatment System Reliability
UASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Features Common to Class I, II, III:
Trash removal or comminution
Grit removal - not applicable to treatment works which do not pump or dewater sludge (e.g., stabilization
ponds)
Provisions for removal of settled solids - applicable to channels, pump wells, and piping prior to
degritting or primary sedimentation
Holding basin - applicable to Class I with adequate capacity for all flows
Unit operation bypass - not applicable where two or more units are provided and operating unit can handle
peak flow; applicable to comminution regardless of number of units
Component Backup Features
Backup bar screen for mechanically
cleaned bar screen or comminutor
Backup pump
Primary sedimentation basins
Trickling filters
Aeration basin
Aeration blowers or mechanical aerators
Air diffusers
Final sedimentation basins
Chemical flash mixer
Chemical sedimentation basins
Filters and activated carbon columns
Flocculation basins
Disinfectant contact basins
Cl'ass I
Yes
Yesa
Multiple basinsb
Multiple filters0
Minimum of two of
equal volume
Multiple units''
Multiple sections'2
Multiple basins0
Minimum of two or
backup^
Multiple basinsc
Multiple unitsc
Minimum, two
Multiple basinsc
Class II
Yes
Yesa
Multiple basins6
Multiple filters'3
Minimum of two of
equal volume
Multiple unitsd
Multiple sections6
Multiple basinsb
No backup
No backup
No backup
No backup
Multiple basins'3
Class III
Yes
Yesa
Minimum, two*3
No backup
Single basin
permissible
Minimum, two^
Multiple sections*
Minimum, two"
No backup
No backup
No backup
No backup
Multiple basins'3
Sufficient capacity of remaining pump to handle peak flow with one pump out of service
bWith largest unit out of service remaining units have capacity for at least 50 percent design flow
cWith largest unit out of service remaining units have capacity for at least 75 percent design flow
duith largest unit out of service remaining units able to maintain design oxygen transfer; backup
unit may be uninstalled
eWith largest section out of service oxygen transfer capability not measurably impaired
flf only one basin, backup system provided with at least two mixing devices (one may be installed)
87
-------
Table 2 Sludge Handling and Disposal System Reliability
SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Features Common to Class I, II, III:
Alternate methods of sludge disposal and/or treatment - applicable to unit operations without backup
capability
Provisions for preventing contamination of treated wastewater
Component Backup Features Common to Class I, II, III:
Sludge holding tanks - permissible as alternative to backup capability with adequate capacity for estimated
time of repair
Backup pump - sufficient capacity of remaining pumps to handle peak flow with one pump out of service;
backup pump may be uninstalled
Anaerobic sludge digestion
Digestion tanks - at least two digestion tanks
Sludge mixing equipment - backup equipment or flexibility of system such that with one piece of
equipment out of service total mixing capability is not lost; backup
equipment may be uninstalled
Aerobic sludge digester
Aeration basin - backup not required
Aeration blowers or mechanical aerators - at least two units: permissible for less than design oxygen
transfer with one unit out of service; backup unit may be
uninstalled
Air diffusers - with largest selection out of service oxygen transfer capability not measurably
impaired
Vacuum filter - multiple filters with capacity to dewater design sludge flow with largest capacity filter
out of service; each filter serviced by two vacuum pumps and two filtrate pumps
Centrifuges - multiple centrifuges with capacity to dewater design sludge flow with largest capacity
centrifuge out of service
Incinerators - backup not required; backup required for critical auxiliary components (e.g., center
shaft cooling fan)
88
-------
Table 3 Electric Power System Reliability
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM
Features Common to Class I, II, III:
Power sources - two separate and independent electric power sources from either two separate utility
substations or one substation and one standby generator.
Capacity of backup power source
Mechanical bar screen or comminutors
Main pumps
Degritting
Primary sedimentation
Secondary treatment
Final sedimentation
Advanced waste treatment
Disinfection
Sludge handling and treatment
Critical lighting and ventilation
Class I
Yes
Yes
Optional
Yes
Yes
Yes
Optional
Yes
Optional
Yes
Class IIa
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Optional
Optional
Optional
Yes
No
Yes
Class III3
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
aAt least treatment equivalent to sedimentation and disinfection.
89
-------
recommended employing mitigating
procedures during design and
construction of the project to provide
erosion and sediment control. You
should ensure that these erosion
and sediment control measures,
addressed in your facilities plan,
are incorporated in the design and
construction phases of your project.
Such measures should include:
o A schedule that provides for the
construction of structures as soon as
possible after clearing and grading;
o Specifications for temporary and
permanent measures to be used for
controlling erosion and sediment;
o A list containing completion
dates for each temporary and permanent
measure for controlling erosion and
sediment; location, type and purpose
for each measure; and dates when
temporary measures will be removed or
replaced;
o Soil or landscaping maintenance
procedures (should be included in the
O&M manual).
11.1.17
MITIGATION OF
ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
During proj ect
design, you should
review the recom-
mendations for
mitigation of
adverse environmental impacts
contained in your facilities plan
(Section 3.2.12) or in the reviewing
agency's environmental assessment and
incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures into the project design.
Failure to incorporate mitigation
measures will result in a determina-
tion that the design is inconsistent
with the facilities plan, thus
potentially delaying the funding of
your project.
11.1.18
SEWERS Sewers should be
designed to maintain
minimum scouring velocities and have
adequate capacity to accommodate flows
based on appropriate peaking factors.
An allowable rate of infiltration
for sewers should be specified and
confirmed by tests after installation.
Additional information regarding the
infiltration and inflow into sewer
systems is included in Section 5.4.
11.1.19
SEWER
REHABILITATION
Where sewer system
rehabilitation is
required based on
the conclusions of the sewer system
evaluation, the specifications and
bid proposals should include unit
prices for such items as: internal
closed-circuit television monitoring
(TV), sewer line cleaning, pressure
testing, chemical grouting of joints,
slip lining, or any other item of work
that lends itself to unit pricing. In
addition, the specifications should
define the sequence of operations
(cleaning, TV, pressure test,
grouting) and the approval authority
necessary to perform each operation.
11.1.20
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
The proposed design
should provide
for flexibility
in operation (e.g., bypassing of
individual unit processes or
components), flexibility between units
(e.g., varying mode of operation), and
easy access to equipment requiring
routine maintenance (e.g., greasing of
bearings or changing of lubricants),
or repair.
11.1.21
HANDICAPPED
ACCESS
In accordance with
EPA Nondiscrimina-
tion Regulations
90
-------
(40 CFR Part 7) your project must be
operated to be readily accessible to
handicapped persons. New facilities
(and, to the extent feasible, altera-
tions to existing facilities) must
be designed and constructed to be
accessible to the handicapped. You
are not, however, required to provide
such access to buildings or parts of
buildings that because of their
intended use do not require public
access or result in employment of the
handicapped. In addition, your
Step 3 grant applications must
include certain assurances of future
compliance and a completed form
4700-41, used in the construction
grants program to monitor discrim-
inatory practices in the provisions of
wastewater treatment services.
Compliance with these regulations in
no way releases you from compliance
with all other applicable laws,
regulations, and executive orders
regarding nondiscrimi nation
(Section 8.5.2).
11.1.22
USE OF
RECOVERED
MATERIALS
The Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
requires procuring
agencies, using appropriated Federal
funds, to purchase items composed of
the highest percentage of recovered
material practical. EPA has recently
published final guidelines (40 CFR,
Part 249) for the Federal procurement
of cement and concrete containing
fly ash).
As a procuring agency, you should
include provisions in construction
contracts and construction specifica-
tions that allow for the use of
concrete and cement, including
products such as pipe and block, which
contains fly ash. This applies to
all of your EPA construction grant
projects, unless the use of fly ash
can be determined to be inappropriate
for technical or economic reasons
documented by you, your design
A/E, or other qualified person.
You should also establish a review
process to resolve disputes concerning
exclusion of cement and concrete
containing fly ash.
11.2
ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSIDERATIONS
Chapter 16 addresses
procurement. It
describes procedures
which allow you to use your own
procurement system or alternatively
the minimum requirements to be
followed when using EPA's procurement
system. The sections that follow
discuss administrative provisions of
the procurement regulations applicable
to the preparation of project and
bidding documents.
11.2.1
BIDDING
DOCUMENTS
Bidding documents
are prepared by your
A/E and include:
o A complete statement of work
to be performed, including where
appropriate, construction drawings
and specifications, complete cost
proposal (separated into allowable and
unallowable categories), and the
required performance schedule;
o
~ The terms and conditions of the
subagreement to be awarded, including
where appropriate, payment, delivery
schedules, point of delivery and
acceptance criteria;
o A clear explanation of the
methods of bidding and of evaluating
bid prices, and the basis and method
for awarding the subagreement;
91
-------
o The responsibility requirements
or criteria which will be employed in
evaluating bidders;
o The prevailing wage determination
made under the Davis-Bacon Act, if
applicable; and
o The deadline and place to submit
bids and a copy of the EPA Procurement
Regulations (40 CFR 33.295, Subparts F
and G) and EPA form 5720-4 "Labor
Standard Provisions for Federally
Assisted Contracts." A copy of EPA
procurement regulation (40 CFR,
Part 35) are included in Appendix N.
It may be to your advantage to require
the contractor to provide detailed, as
opposed to lump sum bids. Such
detailed information would make
it easier to determine the reasons for
cost overruns, to detect bid rigging,
to calculate incremental costs, and to
develop more accurate construction
cost data. When detailed information
is needed, the bid forms should be
kept as simple as possible.
Other provisions of the procurement
regulations applicable to construction
of the project are briefly described
below.
11.2.2
BONDING AND
INSURANCE
Contracts under
$100,000 are subject
to State and local
requirements for bid guarantees,
performance and payment bonds. For
contracts in excess of $100,000 you
may (a) use your own requirements for
these items provided the reviewing
agency determines that the Govern-
ment's interest is adequately
protected or (b) require a 5 percent
bid guarantee and 100 percent perfor-
mance and payment bonds. Bonds
must be obtained from companies
holding certificates of authority
as acceptable sureties. Bond payment
provisions should ensure prompt pay-
ment in the event of nonperformance.
Contractors should be required
to obtain construction insurance
(e.g, fire and extended coverage,
workmen's compensation, public
liability and property damage,
and "all risk", builder's risk,
or installation floater coverage)
as required by State or local law.
Flood Insurance
Flood hazard areas have been
delineated on Flood Hazard Boundary
Maps or Flood Insurance Rate Maps
issued by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. If flood
hazard areas in your community are
delineated in one of these maps, your
participation in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's flood insurance
program is a prerequisite for Step 3
grant assistance. You will have to
provide adequate flood protection
insurance for structures and their
contents if located in flood hazard
areas, both during construction
(specifications generally require the
contractor to provide this insurance
during construction) and for the
useful life of the project. Insurance
is necessary on new or reconstructed
surface structures which are walled or
roofed (e.g., control building or
pumping station) and have a value of
$10,000 or more.
For larger structures, you may find it
prudent to purchase insurance at your
own expense in addition to the
$200,000 maximum provided under the
National Flood Insurance Program.
11.2.3
CONSTRUCTION A construction
INCENTIVE incentive (CI)
PROGRAM program should be
i ncluded i n the
92
-------
contract documents if the eligible
construction costs exceed $1 million.
The CI program allows the prime
contractor to propose changes in the
project which will (a) provide at
least a $50,000 gross capital savings,
and (b) result in a net saving (using
a cost-effectiveness analysis) over
the life of the project. If the CI
change proposal is approved by the
project design engineer and the
reviewing agency and the net capital
savings is $1 million or less, the
contractor would receive 50 percent
of the net capital savings. Above
$1 million, the contractor would
receive $300,000 plus 20 percent of
the net capital savings.
The CI clause must be included in the
approved contract documents before
bids, i.e., it may not be added by a
change order after bids are received.
The CI clause, including procedures
for obtaining approval, is discussed
in Appendix I.
11.2.4
BUY AMERICAN The CWA requires
that preference be
given to domestic construction
materials in EPA grant-assisted
projects. The preference is limited
to 6 percent above the bid or offered
price on foreign materials (including
duties whether or not assessed). Some
construction materials manufactured
in the United States include both
domestic and foreign components. If
the construction material has foreign
components representing 50 percent or
more of the value of the product, the
entire product is considered to be
foreign.
The "Buy American" clause in
EPA's procurement regulations
(40 CFR 33.710) is to be included in
all EPA grant-assisted projects. The
reviewing agency may waive this
requirement where appropriate.
11.2.5
ROYALTIES Reasonable royalties
associated with
the procurement of the right-to-use or
the rights in a patented product,
apparatus, or process are allowable
costs for grant participation
provided that they are necessary,
cost effective and that prior written
approval is obtained from the
reviewing agency. Periodic payment of
royalties for the right to operate
under a patent are considered
operating costs and are not allowable
for grant participation. Prior to
specifying a product or process which
requires the payment of a royalty, you
should determine if other royalty-free
products or processes are available in
order to provide competitive bidding.
Royalties allowable for grant
participation must be based on
a published fee schedule or on
reasonable fees charged to other users
under similar conditions.
11.2.6
PROJECT SIGN An EPA sign or a
State sign approved
by EPA must be provided for
your project site in accordance
with established specifications
(Appendix J).
11.2.7
SMALL, MINORITY, Contractors must
WOMEN'S AND take affirmative
LABOR SURPLUS steps to assure that
AREA BUSINESSES small, minority, and
women's businesses
and labor surplus areas are used when
possible as sources of supplies,
equipment, construction and services
in accordance with EPA's procurement
regulations (40 CFR Part 33). You
and/or your State-can decide how the
93
-------
affirmative steps are to be carried
out. The six (6) affirmative steps
are to be included in the bidding
documents (Section 16.9).
11.3
DESIGN REVIEW A review of your
bidding documents
including the construction drawings
and specifications is performed
prior to the award of Step 3 grant
assistance or before initiating
procurement action for building on
Step 2+3 projects. A review of
the construction drawings and
specifications is made by your
reviewing agency. Your design should
be consistent with your approved
facilities plan, thus avoiding
any delay in approval. Also, a
biddability and constructability
review is conducted by the Corps of
Engineers or delegated State to
ascertain that the proposed construc-
tion drawings and specifications
provide adequate information so that
a contractor can bid and construct the
facility without additional details
or directions. The review by the
reviewing agency is for administrative
purposes only and is a reasonable
determination that the effluent
limitations or water quality standards
described in the facilities plan will
be achieved, that the results of the
infiltration/inflow analysis have been
considered, that the recommendations
of the value engineering review
have been included. The design review
does not relieve you or your A/E of
responsibility for the project design.
Structural, electrical and mechanical
details of design will typically not
be reviewed in detail. Obvious
irregularities will be noted and
reported to you. Compliance with the
design and administrative considera-
tions discussed in this section will
be confirmed by your reviewing agency.
CHAPTER 12
CONCURRENT ACTIVITIES DURING DESIGN
12.0
CONCURRENT During project
ACTIVITIES design, it will be
necessary to under-
take other activities which are either
directly or indirectly related to the
project design or are a part of the
grant application process. While
some of these activities could be
undertaken after design, it is
recommended that they be performed
concurrently with design in order to
save time, reduce costs and continue
moving the project toward grant
award.
12.1
VALUE
ENGINEERING
Value Engineering
(VE) is an intensive
review utilizing
a specialized cost control technique
which identifies unnecessary high cost
in a project. VE obtains the best
project at the least cost, without
sacrificing quality or reliability, by
using:
Multidiscipiinary team of
design professionals guided by
a VE coordinator to:
- Evaluate cost and function
relationships;
— Concentrate on high cost
areas;
- Generate creative alternatives;
~" Provide recommendations to you
and the project designer.
94
-------
A VE review is required for a
construction project with a total
estimated building cost in excess of
$10 million. VE is also recommended
for projects costing less than $10
million because they also contain the
potential for substantial savings. VE
serves as a mechanism to enhance
the design of wastewater treatment
facilities by providing the project
designer with an opportunity to
utilize the knowledge and experience
of other individuals to optimize the
project design.
12.1.1
VE TEAM AND
QUALIFICATIONS
The VE team
coordinator is an
important VE
participant who should have demon-
strated technical and managerial
capability. The team coordinator acts
as a liaison between the VE team, the
project's design team and you. The
team coordinator should be a qualified
individual with VE experience on
wastewater construction projects.
Other VE team members should be
experienced professionals with VE
training, if possible, and previous
VE experience on wastewater construc-
tion projects. The specific team
makeup and size should be appropriate
for the nature, size, and complexity
of the project.
Because it is essential that the VE
review be independent and objective,
it should not be conducted by the
design firm. You should consider
using a separate subagreement with the
VE review firm to perform the VE
review instead of a subcontract under
the original architect/engineer (A/E)
subagreement.
12.1.2
SCOPE OF WORK
The VE study should
consider all
components and systems of the project.
Depending on the size and complexity
of the project, the VE effort may
vary from one team and one review
session to multiple teams and multiple
reviews. For example, a large project
should involve at least two separate
reviews: one review at approximately
the 20-30 percent design stage to
evaluate the plant layout, structural
design, hydraulic capacity, etc.; and
a second review at approximately the
65-75 percent design stage when
electrical and mechanical systems are
being designed.
The VE study will generally result in
two reports. The first VE report
should include such items as:
o Scope of the VE study;
o Basic VE methodology employed,
including the results of each phase,
such as:
- Information Phase - collection
of all facts, background and
data that are pertinent to the
design, including an energy
and a cost model;
- Speculative/Creative Phase -
creation of an extensive list
of alternative ways to perform
the essential functions found
during information gathering,
concentrating on areas with
highest potential savings;
- Evaluation/Analytical Phase -
evaluation of the feasibility
of alternatives generated
during the creative phase;
- Development/Recommendation
Phase - a more complete
evaluation of the most
95
-------
.feasible alternatives
and identification of VE
recommendations;
o Summary of VE recommendations;
o Estimated cost savings for each
VE recommendation.
The VE report is presented both orally
and in writing to you and the project
designer. Since the purpose of
VE is to obtain the best project
at the least cost without sacrificing
quality or reliability, it is
important that the VE recommendations
are evaluated from a noncritical and
constructive position.
The final VE report should include
items such as:
o Accepted VE recommendations;
o Cost and schedule for imple-
menting the accepted recommendations;
o Rejected recommendations
reasons for the rejection;
and
o Net savings (both capital and
O&M) over the planning period for the
accepted VE recommendations.
In reviewing the final report you and
your reviewing agency should ensure
that there is sufficient justification
for each rejected VE recommendation.
12.1.3
PROPOSAL COST
AND TIMING
Since VE is a
process that
involves senior
professionals, the selection of
experienced and well qualified VE
team members and team coordinator
is essential for best results.
Likewise, it is vital that you and
your design A/E, when soliciting or
advertising for VE proposals, clearly
specify the scope of the VE study,
including the number of studies
required and other essential
factors to assure that all proposals
will be submitted on the same basis.
Proposals should clearly identify the
number of studies and teams; the
names and experience backgrounds for
the team coordinator and study team
members, plus a description of the VE
study procedures, with a schedule for
completing the study.
Experience shows that two VE studies
will generally achieve optimum VE
benefits. If the second study cannot
be accomplished, one study should
be scheduled around the 20-30 percent
design stage for best results.
A prestudy meeting with you, your
design A/E, VE team coordinator and
reviewing agency will help refine the
scope, schedules and procedures and
improve working relationships to
maximize study benefits. If managed
properly, VE will not delay the
project.
12.2
USER CHARGE
SYSTEM
The user charge
represents the
amount of money you
will charge each customer each year in
order to pay for the operation,
maintenance, and replacement (OM&R)
of the wastewater collection and
treatment system. A sound user charge
system is an essential step in
ensuring your ability to pay for OM&R.
Generally, the charges are based
on the amount of water (measured by
water meters) used by homeowners
and small commercial establishments.
Industries and large commercial users,
in general, also pay by water use but,
in addition, a surcharge may be added
because the strength of their waste
or the rate of discharge causes
96
-------
additional operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs to be incurred. Nonresi-
dential users which discharge toxic
pollutants, if permitted, into the
system will pay for any increased
costs of managing the effluent or
sludge that results from the toxics.
The objective of the user charge
system is to provide the money
necessary to operate and maintain the
treatment works plus a reserve to pay
for replacement. Maintenance costs
consist of the expenditures for
obtaining and installing equipment,
accessories or appurtenances during
the useful life of the treatment works
necessary to maintain its design
capacity and performance (e.g., pumps,
motors, etc.). The operating costs
will include items such as salaries,
chemicals, utilities, insurance,
training, supplies, etc.
The user charge system for purposes of
the Clean Water Act must not include
charges which are levied to customers
to retire bonds or amortize debt.
The EPA regulations do not contain
requirements for how you accomplish
this. You may include a separate
charge for capital expenses or debt
service on bills to users or recover
these costs in the general tax base.
In public meetings during facilities
planning, you should have advised the
public of the estimated annual user
charge. If the user charges developed
during design are significantly
different from those estimated during
facilities planning, you should
consider having another public
meeting to explain the difference.
An EPA publication entitled "A User
Charge Guidance Manual" will be of
assistance to you in developing and
implementing your user charge system.
However, the next few sections briefly
describe some aspects of user charge
systems.
12.2.1
ACTUAL USE One basis for a user
charge system is the
contributor's actual use of the
wastewater treatment works. The
actual use is measured in terms of
water meter readings, measurement of
sewage flow, strength or rate of
discharge from large nonresident!'al
users or other means of determining
the proportion of the system used by
contributors. The rate charges based
on actual use are then uniformly
applied in each class of users
(residential, small commerical, etc.)
in proportion to its contribution.
Note, however, that the rates may
vary between classes and in some
water-short areas rates have been
established to help conserve water
resources and encourage recycling or
reuse of process wastes.
If you do not have an existing user
charge system and are developing a new
system, the user charge for the first
year should be based on your estimates
of O&M costs and then adjusted
annually thereafter to reflect actual
O&M and replacement costs.
12.2.2
AD VALOREM TAXES Another approach
used for developing
a user charge system is based on ad
valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes are
taxes based on the value of property.
This system has been approved to
permit communities which have
historically paid sewage treatment
costs out of residential property
taxes, to continue to do so. In
order for an ad valorem based user
charge system to be approved, certain
conditions are to be satisifed:
o On December 27, 1977 you had in
existence a system of dedicated ad
valorem taxes which was used then and
97
-------
continues to be used for collecting
revenues for the operation and
maintenance of your treatment works.
o The ad valorem user charge
system must distribute costs to the
residential and small nonresidential
users class in proportion to the use
of the treatment works by this class.
o Industrial and commercial users,
each of which discharges more than
25,000 gallons per day (gpd) of
sanitary waste, as a class must each
pay their share of the O&M costs
(including replacement) based on
actual use.
12.2.3
OTHER USER
CHARGE
CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary
that each user be
notified at least
annually of the rate
and portion of the user charges or
ad valorem taxes attributable to OM&R
(waste treatment services) of the
treatment works. For example,
assume 3 persons per household with
each person using 70 gallons per day.
This is equivalent to 76,650 gallons
per year for the household. Further
assume that the annual charge is
$100 per year and of this amount
$40 is for OM&R and $60 is for
debt retirement; the user charge rate
would be $.52 per 1,000 gallons
($40/76.65 x 1,000 gallons). The user
is specifically notified of this rate
($.52/1,000 gallons) although in some
cases the bill may include other
charges. In addition, the user charge
system must include an adequate
financial management system which
accurately accounts for revenues and
expenditures for OM&R of the treatment
system.
A problem sometimes arises for those
communities with existing sewer
systems which contain some
infiltration and/or inflow which is
not economical to remove (i.e.,
nonexcessive I/I). The OM&R costs for
treating this flow can be distributed
among all users based on:
o The same manner that is used for
actual use; or
o Any combination of flow volume,
land area of user, number of hookups
or discharges, or property valuation
(if an ad valorem system has been
approved).
Revenues which may be generated from
the project (e.g., sale of treatment
related byproducts, lease of land,
sale of crops or digester gas, etc.)
should be used to offset OM&R costs
and thereby proportionately reduce
user charges.
12.2.4
ADOPTION OF
SYSTEM
The user charge
system is generally
developed during
the design phase and must be approved
as a prerequisite to award of grant
assistance. Very often the user
charge system is enacted by a munici-
pal ordinance and includes details on
how rates will be established, how
often bills will be sent, and requires
annual review and updating. The
annual review should be conducted to
determine whether sufficient revenue
is being collected, whether revenue is
generated in proportion to cost, and
that the equipment replacement reserve
account is adequate. If your project
will serve more than one municipality,
it will be necessary for each partici-
pating jurisdiction to enact similar
or identical user charge systems
before the treatment works is placed
in operation. Where there are prior
service agreements concerning user
charges, the new system developed and
98
-------
approved under the EPA grant will
take precedence over any terms or
conditions of earlier, inconsistent
agreements. Enact the user charge
system before the treatment works are
placed in operation.
12.3
SEWER USE
ORDINANCE
Approval of a sewer
use ordinance or
equivalent legally
binding document is a prerequisite to
award of grant assistance. A sewer
use ordinance restricts certain
connections and wastes, in order to
protect your investment and enhance
treatment process stability and
effluent quality. Many municipalities
with existing wastewater treatment
systems have already enacted a sewer
use ordinance. In this case you
should submit a copy with your grant
application to your project reviewer.
The sewer use ordinance:
o Prohibits new inflow sources,
i.e., extraneous water generally
associated with storm events such as
downspouts, area drains, sump pumps,
connections from storm sewers, etc.;
o Requires that new sewers and
connections be properly designed
and constructed;
o Prohibits introduction of toxic
or hazardous wastes into the sewers in
an amount or concentration that
endangers the public's safety or the
physical integrity of the system which
may cause violations of your NPDES
permit or precludes the selection of
the most cost-effective alternative
for treatment, reuse and sludge
disposal.
o You must provide assurances
that all existing residences will
connect to the sewer system withi
a reasonable time after projec
completion.
The sewer use ordinance should be
directly related to your municipal
pretreatment program and may be
the legally binding instrument
which implements portions of your
pretreatment program.
While the three items above form the
basis for a sewer use ordinance, the
actual details contained in the
ordinance should be much more specific
and contain descriptions or procedures
such as: limitations on wastewater
strength from nonresidential users;
prohibition on dilution; notification
procedures concerning accidental
spills; removal of illegal connections
and rehabilitation of deficient
sewer connections as a condition of
property sales; discharge reporting
requirements; rights of all parties,
including right of municipality,
EPA and State personnel to enter
all properties for testing and
measurement, and right of property
owners including protection of
trade secrets, insurance, and
safety requirements.
As is true with the user charge
system, if your project serves
more than one municipality, each
jurisdiction should enact a sewer use
ordinance in order to ensure that the
entire system is protected as soon as
practical.
12.4
PLAN OF
OPERATION
The construction
grant regulations
require that prior
to initiating procurement to construct
your project for either a Step 3
or Step 2 + 3 grant, that you submit
for approval a draft plan of operation
99
-------
I to your reviewing agency. This draft
plan summarizes the actions necessary
to identify those steps required
for cost effective, efficient, and
reliable project start-up and
continued successful operation to be
taken at the appropriate times.
Certain information that is needed to
complete a draft plan of operation
may not be known until the project
building is under way. Therefore,
it may be necessary to define imple-
mentation schedules either in terms of
an estimated percent of building
completion, or in terms of a certain
number of days before the initiation
of operation.
The final plan of operation must be
submitted to your reviewing agency for
approval prior to or at the time you
request the 50 percent payment. This
final plan of operation is to contain
detailed information concerning who
will perform necessary tasks, when and
how tasks will be undertaken, and the
nature of each task. The final plan
may be in schedule format, (like the
draft plan), with only the major tasks
to be accomplished shown in detail.
The plan of operation should provide a
concise description and implementation
schedule, compiled in chronological
order, that includes the major topics
that are summarized in the following
sections.
12.4.1
BUDGET Be sure provisions
are made for an
annual budget sufficient to provide
for efficient O&M, and replacement
(during project's useful life)
including administration, supplies,
utility charges, and ancillary
equipment.
Your budget should also include
provision for salaries and benefits to
attract qualified personnel, and funds
to train and upgrade employees.
Timely enactment and implementation of
the user charge system and sewer use
ordinance is important to ensure that
adequate revenue is available in
advance of start-up to support your
budget needs. Your revenue generation
should be reviewed prior to the end of
the first year's performance period
and compared to actual operational
costs. Costs should be reviewed on an
annual basis thereafter.
12.4.2
FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
Your management
system can be either
a manually operated
system in a small
wastewater treatment plant or a
computerized system in a larger plant,
although) recommending a computerized
system does not imply the system
cost will be eligible for grant
participation. At a minimum, your
system should include the following:
o Contain an accounting of daily
revenues and expenditures for project
O&M including replacement of parts
during useful life;
o O&M and replacement costs and
expeditures incurred during the
project's useful life for materials,
labor, utilities, and other items
which are necessary for managing and
maintaining the project to achieve the
capacity and performance for which it
was planned, designed, and built.
Replacement costs included in your
Financial Management System are those
costs for obtaining and installing
equipment, accessories, or appurtences
during the useful life of the
100
-------
treatment works necessary to maintain
the capacity and performance for which
they were designed and constructed.
12.4.3
STAFFING AND
TRAINING
You should develop a
staffing plan to
include staffing
patterns and salary schedules, staff
structure and organization, and
operator certification requirements.
Your staffing plan should also
include provisions to:
o Hire the chief operator before
construction is 50 percent complete
(50 percent payment);
o Discuss potential hiring problems
that may be encountered and actions to
solve the problems at least 60 days
prior to start-up;
o Develop a continuous employee
safety and operations training
plan, and schedule training at least
30 days prior to start-up;
o You should formally review
adherance to the staff ing and
training plans prior to the end of the
1-year performance period.
12.4.4
EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS
PROGRAM
You should develop a
program that,
addresses emergency
operations. The
program should include:
o A vulnerability analysis of the
system,
o An emergency response program;
o A periodic revision of the
program as necessary;
o Protection measures.
12.4.5
ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTIONS
following:
As administrator of
the project, you
should provide the
o Provide program and laboratory
facilities which are adequate to
perform appropriate monitoring and
analyses for process control and
compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit and State requirements;
o Implementation of a quality
assurance program to evaluate and
improve laboratory analysis and
reporting of self-monitoring NPDES
data;
o Ensure that arrangements for
submission of appropriate operational
reports to the State have been made;
o Assure that adequate considera-
tion has been given to operational
procedures during the start-up period;
o Develop and implement a
maintenance management system;
o Establish procedures for start-up
and continued engineering services for
1 year after initiation of operation
(i.e., 1-year performance period);
o Provide a complete and up-to-date
O&M Manual that is revised during
the 1-year performance period to
reflect actual operating conditions.
Additional information on operations
is included in Section 14.6.
Recommended content of the O&M Manual
is described in Section 12.4.7.
12.4.6
START-UP
SERVICES
If start-up services
are provided, the
amount of services
must be reasonable for the project's
101
-------
complexity and size. Professional
judgement should be used in
determining both the duration and
amount of start-up services needed.
These services should result in the
project being on-line and in full-time
operation for the purpose for which
it was planned, designed, and built
(Section 14.6).
The start-up services consist
primarily of operator assistance
and training, with observation by
qualified operators. On-site training
rendered during the 1-year performance
period is over-the-shoulder operator
assistance with the operator
performing daily facility operations.
Start-up services should include
training of personnel in the areas
of:
o O&M of specific treatment
processes to include:
- Competent operational
assistance for adjustment
of the treatment process
and related equipment
functions to attain an initial
stable state of continuous
performance, safety, and
reliability under actual
operating conditions.
o Detailed laboratory procedures
including:
- Training and instructions to
provide adequate sampling,
testing, and quality assurance
needed for process control
and regulatory monitoring
reporting, including the
necessity for laboratory
certification by the
regulatory agency.
o Maintenance Management System
including:
- Services needed to implement
the maintenance management
system outlined in the O&M
Manual, such as lubrication,
oil and filter changes, and
other preventive and correc-
tive maintenance procedures as
well as spare- and consumable-
parts inventory.
o Records Management System setting
forth:
- Services to provide the
training needed to implement
a records management system
as outlined in the O&M
Manual. This system will
become a major element in
larger and more complex
projects that require more
sophisticated systems to
adequately handle records
related to process control,
effluent quality monitoring,
reporting requirements,
inventories for chemicals,
supplies and spare parts, etc.
12.4.7
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
MANUAL
An O&M Manual is an
essential part of
the plan of opera-
tion. Grant
payments made to you from your
reviewing agency will not exceed
90 percent of the grant award amount
until a satisfactory O&M Manual has
been accepted by your reviewing
agency.
The O&M Manual should provide
essential information and guidance for
the treatment works for day-to-day
operations. The following major
topics should be included in the O&M
Manual:
102
-------
o Information on process design
assumptions such as design flows,
peak flows, pump capacities, sedi-
mentation basin detention times,
surface loadings, weir loadings,
food-to-microorganism loadings, oxygen
transfer requirements, simplified
schematic diagrams of the project's
pipelines, control systems, and
detailed diagrams of more complicated
components;
o Unit process information that
includes control measures and
monitoring procedures for various
processes for achieving maximum
efficiency, including a clear explana-
tion of process functions of various
components with simplified language
and referencing appropriate equipment
manufacturers' manuals and EPA
technical manuals for more detailed
technical information;
o Start-up procedures for each unit
operation and piece of equipment;
o Maintenance management system
including schedules and procedures for
routine adjustments, lubrication,
oil and filter changes, and other
preventive and corrective maintenance
procedures as well as a spare parts
inventory;
o Laboratory test procedures,
schedules, and equipment, including
quality assurance necessary for
control of the treatment works, and
the specific reports to be sent to
local. State, and Federal regulatory
agencies;
o Safety procedures for operating
equipment with particular emphasis on
potentially hazardous areas such as
wet and dry wells, chlorination
facility, and anaerobic digesters;
o Organizational structure, job
descriptions and duties, administra-
tive procedures for purchase order
preparation approvals and budget
preparation, etc;
o "Troubleshooting," analyzing and
solving problems which frequently
occur in treatment works which are
related either to unit processes or
the operation of specific pieces of
equipment;
o An operating plan for emergencies
which may occur and the procedures to
be followed until normal operation can
be resumed.
A further description of the O&M
Manual is in EPA's publication
"Considerations for Preparation of
Operation and Maintenance Manuals"
(EPA-430/9-74-001).
12.4.8
O&M PROGRAM FOR
COMPLETE WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
The plan of
operation must
include development
of an operations and
maintenance program
that coordinates all O&M activities of
the newly constructed facility as well
as the O&M activities of the other
facilities that comprise your complete
waste treatment system.
12.5
ONSITE AND
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
If your project
includes onsite or
cluster treatment
systems, you will be required to:
o Assume responsibility for
participating contributors including
proper installation, operation and
maintenance;
o Assure that systems will be
constructed, operated and maintained
to protect underground potable
water sources;
103
-------
o Develop a user charge system and
sewer use ordinance;
o Obtain reasonable access to all
systems;
o Establish a comprehensive
management and inspection program
including water well testing.
During the design phase you should
prepare a brief report addressing
these responsibilities and indicating
how and when they will be implemented.
12.6
INNOVATIVE
DESIGNATION
RECONFIRMATION
During the develop-
ment of your
facilities plan you
evaluated numerous
wastewater treatment systems. The
project, or its components, selected
in your facilities plan may have been
initially designated as innovative
(Section 6.7.3). Based on the
criteria used to classify your
project, it may be necessary to
reconfirm that designation during
design.
Conventional processes proposed as
innovative technology projects require
more detailed evaluation in order to
confirm the significant cost or
energy savings or satisfy the other
innovative criteria. For example, it
may be necessary to recompute the
cost or energy savings after a
significant portion of the design is
completed and compare it with the
estimates in the facilities plan. On
the other hand, the reviewing agency
may determine that a treatment system
is innovative because of local
variations in geographic or climatic
conditions or because it achieves
significant public benefits which
would not otherwise be possible.
Based on the results of reevaluation
the project or component parts may be
confirmed as innovative or lose that
designation. In the latter case, you
should resolve with your project
reviewer whether to continue with the
project design presently under way.
12.7
PLANNING FOR
LOCAL FUNDS
One criterion for
evaluating and
selecting your
project during the facilities planning
phase was a financial capability
analysis (Section 7.3). At the
conclusion of design you should
reevaluate the financial impact of the
project upon your municipality's
financial status to ensure that the
project is not too costly. For
example, your A/E will have prepared a
revised cost estimate of the project
based upon the detailed construction
drawings and specifications and
current costs of construction. These
costs should be compared with the
estimates in your financial capability
analysis. You should also reexamine
your municipality's indebtedness
or ability to finance the local
cost share. During the time from
completion of your facilities plan
to completion of design, your
municipality may have incurred other
debts or undergone other changes which
affect your debt limitation. If you
determine that your project is not too
costly, you should undertake financial
arrangements to ensure that you can
obtain the non-Federal funds for
construction generally within 90 days
of grant award. If you determine that
your project is too expensive based on
the criteria in Section 7.3, you
should meet with your project reviewer
to determine means of reducing project
costs.
104
-------
PART III. CONSTRUCTION
CHAPTER 13
GRANT APPLICATION
13.0
NARRATIVE
STATEMENT
Your Step 3 grant
assistance applica-
tion will include
your completed facilities plan,
bidding documents including construc-
tion drawings and specifications
as well as other supporting or
supplementary information. Supporting
information may include such items as
final NPDES permit, discussion of
historical sites, estimated indirect
costs, compliance reporting schedule
(Form 4700-4), Minority Business
Enterprise/Women Business Enterprise
(MBE/WBE) requirements and report (EPA
6005-1), cost summary report (EPA
5700-41), and certification that you
will comply or have complied with all
applicable Federal, State, and local
laws and ordinances.
After grant award your Step 3
activities will not only include
building the project but also may
include other activities such as
preparation of the final plan of
operation, implementation of your
user charge system, etc. Therefore,
you may find it helpful to prepare
a narrative statement which
describes your project's history
(e.g., pertinent correspondence with
your reviewing agency concerning your
facilities plan, environmental review
or design) and the activities you
intend to undertake after grant award.
The narrative statement serves to tie
together all the separate activities
(schedule, scope of work, costs),
places them in proper perspective and
helps attain complete understanding of
your project by the project reviewer.
If you choose to provide a narrative
statement, it could be part of your
letter forwarding the application
package or a separate attachment.
13.1
CONTENTS OF
APPLICATION
An application for
Step 3 grant
assistance includes:
o A facilities plan prepared
in accordance with the regulations
(40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E or I as
appropriate);
o Certification from the State
that there has been adequate public
participation based on State and local
statutes (Section 3.1);
o Notification of any advance of
allowance received from the State
(Introduction, Grants Program);
o Evidence of compliance with all
applicable limitations on award
(Section 13.2);
o Construction drawings and
specifications suitable for bidding
purposes (Part II of this book);
o Project schedule;
o In the case of an application
for Step 3 assistance that includes
the acquisition of eligible land,
include a plat which shows the legal
description of the property to be
acquired, a preliminary layout of the
distribution and drainage systems, and
an explanation of the intended method
of acquiring the property;
o In the case of an application for
Step 2+3 grant assistance, include the
above items, except drawings and
specifications and eligible land
description. Note that not all
of the limitations on award are
applicable at the time of Step 2+3
application.
105
-------
The following sections discuss the
contents of an application (other than
facilities plans and project design)
and in the case of limitations on
award, list the items and provide
references to other sections of this
book.
13.1.1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL At an early state in
COORDINATION development of your
project, you were
encouraged to obtain comments that
will indicate the degree of concern
other agencies have in your project
(Section 2.3). You should review
any comments received to identify
sensitive issues for evaluation in
your facilities plan. In addition,
your State may have established
procedures under EO 12372, which
replaces Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) circular A-95, for
consulting between State and local
officials and Federal agencies
concerning activities under Federal
programs. In this case, certification
that these procedures have been
complied with must accompany your
application. Also, further contact.
may be required at the Step 3
application stage even if you had
previous contact earlier in the
planning or design stages. Contact
your project reviewer for additional
information.
13.1.2
APPLICATION FORM The application form
(EPA Form 5700-32)
contains specific instructions for its
completion. The form is signed by
your authorized representative
acting as the "applicant" for grant
assistance. Include a copy of the
resolution designating the official
authorized to sign the application.
Three items, however, require special
attention.
Site Information
For projects requesting grant
assistance for acquisition of
eligible land a plat which shows a
legal description is required
(Section 13.1). For projects
requesting grant assistance for
eligible land previously acquired or
for which an option for purchase has
been taken and for which approval as a
preaward cost (Section 13.2) has been
granted, submit a copy of the deed
or other interest in the property or a
copy of the option. In both cases,
the deed will include provisions
which note and protect the Federal
interests.
For projects involving land
acquisition not eligible for grant
assistance, the land, easements
or other real property should be
obtained, bonafide options taken or
formal condemnation proceedings
initiated before application for
grant assistance is made. The
municipal attorney will need to
describe the status of your real
property acquisitions in a separate
attachment to your application.
Sludge Management
Grant applicants should demonstrate
that provisions have been made to
manage the solids generated by the
project in a cost-effective manner
that provides for the protection of
public health and the environment.
This demonstration should include
evidence that any special permits or
approvals for the sludge management
system have been addressed.
Funding Local Share
The application form requires
information concerning the amount of
106
-------
grant assistance (Federal, including
EPA or Farmers Home Administration,
and/or State; Section 13.5 and
Appendix F) you expect to receive.
You should explain fully how you will
raise the non-Federal project funds in
order to initiate procurement actions
to build the project promptly. If
procurement action for building
the project is not initiated promptly
after grant award, your grant may be
subject to sanctions (40 CFR Part 30).
In addition, failure to promptly award
all subagreements for building the
project will result in a limitation on
allowable costs (40 CFR Part 35,
Appendix A, a.Z.e.)
Assurances
Review the assurances contained in
Part V of the grant application form
carefully. After grant award you will
have to anticipate and plan for the
work involved in meeting these
assurances.
13.2
LIMITATIONS ON
AWARD
Before grant award
the State agency
must approve your
facilities plan and construction
drawings and specifications, determine
that all regulatory requirements are
met and that costs requested for grant
participation are reasonable and
allowable. Many of these limitations
will have been satisfied if your
facilities plan and design have been
completed in accordance with this
guidance. However, the limitations
are listed below as a convenient
check to you and referenced to other
sections of this book or are briefly
described as appropriate.
I Advanced Treatment
Projects for which the incremental
capital cost of advanced treatment
exceeds $3 million are to be reviewed
and approved by EPA headquarters.
Projects with incremental costs of
$3 million or less are reviewed
by the Regions or delegated States
(Section 9.2.1).
Water Quality Management (WQM)
Plans
Projects will be consistent with
applicable WQM plans and grant
applicants shall be as designated in
the plan (Section 4.0).
Priority Determination
Projects will be listed on the State's
project priority list. (Introduction,
Grants Program; Section 4.1).
Funding and Other Considerations
Grant applicants will agree to pay
the non-Federal project costs;
demonstrate the legal, institutional,
managerial and financial capability
to ensure adequate building and
operation, maintenance and replacement
(OM&R) of the treatment works. The
applicant must certify that the costs
and financial impacts have been
analyzed a-nd that the applicant has,
or has the capability to obtain,
the financial resources, technical
qualifications, experience, satis-
factory performance record, accounting
and auditing procedures, property
management system, procurement
standards, organization, and
facilities appropriate to carry out
and manage the project (Section 7.3).
The applicant must also certify that
it has not violated any Federal,
State, or local civil rights, equal
employment opportunity, labor law, or
other statutory requirements in
connection with facilities planning or
design work.
107
-------
Debarment and Suspension
Grant applications will indicate
whether a subagreement was awarded to
an individual, organization or unit of
government for facilities planning or
design work whose name appears on
EPA's master list of debarments,
suspensions and voluntary exclusions
(40 CFR Part 32).
If grant applicants affirmatively
certify that such an award was
made, EPA will closely examine the
facilities plan, construction drawings
and specifications to determine
whether to award a grant.
Plan of Operation
A draft plan of operation which
includes a schedule for the prepara-
tion for and operation of the
treatment works must accompany
the application. The plan of
operation must address the:
o Operation and maintenance manual;
o Emergency operating program;
o Personnel training;
o Adequate budget;
o Operational reports;
o Laboratory testing needs;
o Operation and maintenance
program.
During building of the project the
plan of operation must be finalized
and implemented (Section 12.4).
Intermunicipal Service
Agreements
Executed intermunicipal service
agreements or other legally binding
instruments covering the basis upon
which costs are allocated, the formula
for cost allocation, and the manner in
which the cost allocation system will
be administered will be submitted for
Step 3 projects if the project
serves two or more municipalities
(Introduction, Managing Your Project;
Section 8.5.1). This requirement may
be waived if:
o An agreement is already in place;
o Historical evidence for services
between parties exists; or
o The grant applicant is
financially strong enough to continue
the project even if one of the
proposed communities fails to
participate.
Segmented Treatment Works
Grant assistance may be awarded for a
phase or segment of a treatment works,
although the phase or segment does
not result in compliance with the
enforceable requirements of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), provided;
o A phase or segment is a
substantial portion of a facility and
its interceptors, if any. These are
described in the facilities plan;
o Grant agreements require the
recipient to make the treatment works,
of which the phase or segment is a
part, operational and comply with the
enforceable requirements of the
CWA according to a schedule specified
in the grant agreement, regardless of
whether grant funding is available for
the remaining phases and segments;
and
o One or more of the following
conditions exist: (1) the federal
108
-------
share of the cost of building the
treatment works would require a
disproportionate share of the State's
annual allotment relative to other
needs or would require a major portion
of the State's annual allotment;
(2) the period to complete the
building of the treatment works will
cover three years or more; (3) the
treatment works must be phased or
segmented to meet the requirements of
a Federal or State court order.
Step 2+3
Grant assistance for Step 2+3 projects
is limited to: municipalities with
population of 25,000 or less according
to latest U.S. Census; total Step 3
building cost of $8 million or less;
and complete treatment systems
(i.e., not for treatment works phase
or segment). Prior to acquiring
eligible real property, submit a copy
of the plat and legal description
(Section 13.1). Before initiating
procurement for building the project,
the reviewing agency must approve
the construction drawings and
specifications, plan of operation,
sewer use ordinance, project schedule,
intermunicipal service agreements, and
user charge system.
Access to Individual Systems
Grant applicants will provide
assurance of access to privately
owned individual systems and provide
assurance of complete management
capability for small alternative
wastewater treatment systems
(Section 6.7.2).
Revised Water Quality
Standards
[Grants may not be awarded after
I December 29, 1984, where the State has
failed to review and revise or adopt
(as appropriate) new water quality
standards relating to your project.
Marine Discharge Waiver
Applicants
Grant applicants who have also applied
for a secondary treatment waiver
(Section 301(h) of the CWA) will
include with their applications
provisions for possible future
additions of wastewater treatment and
sludge management processes to meet
full secondary treatment requirements
(40 CFR, 35.2112).
Environmental Review
Grant applicants will have consulted
with their reviewing agency, prior to
completing a facilities plan, to
determine the appropriateness of a
categorical exclusion from substantive
environmental review or the scope of
an environmental information document
as an integral part of the facilities
plan. The reviewing agency will
have determined, ideally after the
completion of the facilities plan, the
appropriateness for a finding of no-
significant-impact or the need to
prepare an environmental impact
statement (Section 9.2.2). An
application for grant assistance
will be submitted only after EPA
has completed the appropriate
environmental document in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 6. Based upon a
revised environmental analysis to
reflect only significant project
changes made during design.
Value Engineering
Projects with total estimated costs of
building the treatment works in excess
of $10 million will be subject to
value engineering prior to grant award
109
-------
(Section 12.1). Value Engineering
recommendations shall be implemented
to the maximum extent feasible.
Collection System
Except as provided by the Regulations
(40 CFR 35.2116), projects involving
sewage collection systems will be for
replacement or major rehabilitation of
existing systems not built with
Federal funds awarded on or after
October 18, 1972, and necessary
to the integrity and performance of
the complete treatment system, or for
new systems where the bulk (generally
two-thirds) of the expected flows are
from residences in existence on
October 18, 1972 (Section 6.4).
Major rehabilitation of existing sewer
systems are ineligible after September
30, 1984 (CFR, 35.2015). Grant
applicants will provide assurance that
existing residences will connect to
the sewer system within a reasonable
time after project completion.
Preaward Costs
In general, project work performed
before grant award is not allowable
for grant participation except: an
allowance may be included in the
grant award for facilities planning
and design for preliminary Step 3
work; in emergencies or where delay
could result in significant cost
increase (e.g., procurement of major
equipment requiring long lead times,
field testing of innovative and
alternative (I&A) technologies, minor
sewer rehabilitation, acquisition or
option for purchase of eligible land,
advance building of minor portions of
the treatment works); and only after
completion of the environmental review
and approval by the reviewing agency.
Prior approval of preliminary Step 3
work is not an actual or implied
commitment of grant assistance,
and potential grant applicants proceed
at their own risk.
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
Grant applicants shall demonstrate
that the proposed treatment works
project is not nor will be subject
to excessive I/I (Section 5.4).
Approval of User Charge System and
Proposed Sewer Use Ordinance
A user charge system (Section 12.2)
and sewer use ordinance (Section 12.3)
will be approved before grant award.
Where an existing system or ordinance
is in effect it must be demonstrated
that it is adequate and being
enforced.
Reserve Capacity
Grant assistance for reserve capacity
will be limited depending on the date
of Step 3 grant award and the date of
earlier segmented grant awards, if any
(Sections 5.5 and 7.2).
Treatment of Wastewater from
Industrial Users
Grant assistance is provided to
projects whose principal purpose
is the treatment of domestic
wastewater of the entire community
concerned and may not include costs of
interceptors or collector sewers
constructed exclusively, or almost
exclusively, to serve industrial users
or costs for control or removal of
industrial pollutants unless the
applicant is already required to
remove such pollutants from the
nonindustrial users (Section 6.9).
Federal Facilities
Grant assistance must not include the
costs for transport and treatment of
110
-------
wastewate'r generated by a Federal
facility which contributes more
than 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) or
5 percent of the design flow of the
treatment system, whichever is less.
13.3
OTHER STEP 3
CONSIDERATIONS
Other Step 3 actions
that should be
undertaken either
prior to or after Step 3 grant
award include the following. These
actions and their timing are briefly
described below.
You may need to furnish evidence of
your participation in the flood
insurance program (Section 11.2.2),
you may need to describe your
procedures to comply with your pre-
treatment program (Section 8.5.4), or
you may wish to continue with your
public participation program (Section
3.1). In any case, you should provide
sufficient information and documenta-
tion to describe the activities you
will undertake during Step 3.
Grant Payment Schedule
Your application should include a
preliminary or final schedule for
disbursement of grant funds. The
payment schedule may be revised after
receipt of bids if necessary. For
smaller projects the schedule may show
quarterly payment requests but for
larger projects monthly reports of
expenditures may be advisable. In
projecting a payment schedule, refer
to Section 15.4. This information is
used to forecast your cash needs for
Federal budgetary purposes. Give
careful consideration to your cash
flow needs and assumptions as the
schedule is prepared.
Public Interaction
During construction it may be
necessary to close streets, reroute
traffic or otherwise temporarily
inconvenience the public. Project
specifications should require the
contractor to make provisions for
these actions including notification
to police, fire and ambulance
services. However, public notice
of the timing and duration of
these inconveniences will help
promote public acceptance and avoid
complaints.
13.4
PROCUREMENT You are encouraged
to use your own
procurement system if it meets the
Federal minimum requirements as
described in Chapter 16. It is
recommended that, as early as
possible, you complete and submit
the "Procurement System Certifica-
tion Form for Applicants for EPA
Assistance" (EPA Form 5700-48) in
accordance with its instructions
(Appendix N).
At the time of grant application one
aspect of procurement, namely,
procurement of architect/engineer
(A/E) services, should be noted.
By signing the application form you
have certified that you will comply
with the assurances contained in
Part V of the form. One of the
assurances requires you to provide A/E
services needed to complete the
project, including technical
supervision, to ensure conformance
with approved construction drawings
and specifications. In addition, a
condition of grant acceptance will
require that your prime engineer
direct the operation of the project,
train or provide for training of
operating personnel, revise the
operation and maintenance (O&M)
manual, prepare curriculum and
training material for operating
personnel, observe and periodically
111
-------
report on the performance of the
project, and advise you whether the
project is meeting its performance
standards. Part of these activities
are to be carried out during the first
year of operation of the project.
The procurement of the A/E firm to
provide these services must comply
with the applicable provisions of your
certified procurement system or, in
the alternative, EPA's procurement
regulations. Costs for these services
should be anticipated prior to, and
included, in your application for
grant assistance. You should note
that under certain circumstances
you may continue with the same A/E
firm which provided engineering
services during facilities planning or
design without having to readvertise
and reevaluate candidate firms
(see Section 16.5.5). You may
also consider the use of "Force
Account" to provide certain services
(Section 15.3).
13.5
FEDERAL GRANT
SHARE
After review and
approval of a
completed applica-
tion, grant assistance will be awarded
based on the sum of the total Step 3
allowable cost plus the allowance.
Unless the Governor has uniformly
lowered the Federal share, as
discussed in the introduction, grant
assistance will be:
o 75 percent before October 1,
1984;
o 55 percent after September 30,
1984; or
o 75 percent after September 30,
1984, for all phases or segments
of treatment works, not including
collection systems, major sewer system
rehabilitations, and combined sewer
overflows only if the initial phase
or a segment received Step 3 grant
award prior to October 1, 1984
(40 CFR, 35.2152);
o I&A technology projects or their
I&A components may receive increased
Federal grant assistance of 20 percent
greater than conventional projects.
Grant assistance will not exceed a
total Federal share of 85 percent
(75 percent after September 30, 1984),
except for certain cases, such as
segmented projects or as described in
the CWA.
The 1981 amendments to the CWA
eliminated grants for facilities
planning (Step 1) and design (Step 2)
and substituted an "allowance" as part
of the Step 3 grant to help defray
the cost of these activities. The
allowance is not intended to reimburse
you on a dollar-for-dollar basis for
cost incurred during planning and
design. Rather, the amount of
the allowance is based on the
percentage of building costs that have
historically been attributable to
facilities planning and design
activities. Appendix B to EPA's
grant regulations (40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart I) provides specific details
for computation of the allowance and
should be consulted as you prepare
your grant application. The construc-
tion grant regulations are included in
Appendix M. Briefly, however, the
procedures may be summarized as
follows:
o Prepare an estimate of the
allowable building costs for your
project (generally prepared by your
A/E);
o Use Table 1 or 2 (included in
Appendix B cited above) depending on
whether you received a Step 1 grant;
112
-------
o Enter the appropriate table with
the estimated allowable building cost
and determine the allowance as a
percentage of the estimated allowable
building cost (interpolate between
values);
o Compute the estimated allowance
(in dollars) by multiplying the
(allowance percentage) determined in
the previous step by the (estimated
allowable) building costs.
The Federal share (the amount of the
EPA grant) is determined by summing
the allowance and the Step 3 allowable
cost and multiplying this amount by
the appropriate grant percentage
described at the beginning of this
section.
The limitations on computing the
allowance (initially based on
estimate; final after bids are
accepted and payment of the allowance
(both for Step 3, Step 2+3 and advance
of allowance) should be carefully
noted as you prepare your application
for grant assistance.
In States which provide State grant
assistance and for projects which are
designated as innovative or alterna-
tive (I or A), the State grant
must be in the same proportion as
provided to non I or A projects. For
example, assume a conventional project
with a total cost of $100. The
Federal share would be $75 and the
non-Federal share the balance or $25.
If a State is awarding 15 percent
grants, the State grant would be $15
and the local share $10. The State
grant represents 60 percent ($15/$25)
of the non-Federal share. If an I or
A project costing $100 is awarded an
85 percent Federal grant or $85, the
non-Federal share is $15. In this
case, the State grant is required to
be 60 percent (as before) of the
non-Federal share or $9 (60 percent x
$15) and the local share is $6 (40
percent x $15);
The term "treatment works phase or
segment" means a substantial portion
of a treatment facility. Under
certain circumstances, after
September 30, 1984, a phase or segment
of a treatment works may be eligible
to receive 75 percent funding
(grandfathering). The requirements
for grandfathering and the funding
sequence for grandfathered phases or
segments are set forth in the Federal
Share section and are explained in the
preamble of the construction grant
regulation (40 CFR, Part 35 Preamble;
40 CFR, 35.2152).
All grants are subject to Federal
appropriations and the availability
of remaining funds in the State's
allotment or required reserves.
13.6
GRANT AWARD State reviewing
agencies must
receive and review all applications
and supporting documents to assure
they are complete. The State
reviewing agency must also certify
that the project is on the fundable
portion of the State priority list.
In States which have been delegated
authority to review and certify all
requirements necessary for award of
Step 2+3 and Step 3 grant assistance,
the State will provide such certifica-
tion to EPA and EPA will have 45 days
in which to approve or disapprove the
application. If EPA does not approve
or disapprove the application within
45 days, the application will be
deemed approved subject to available
appropriations.
In States which have not entered into
delegation agreements with EPA or do
113
-------
not have sufficient authority to
certify all necessary requirements,
the State will provide EPA with
certification and other such
documentation as has been agreed to
between the State and EPA.
As a result of the review process,
the project reviewer may modify the
grant amount, scope of work or
other aspects of the project. In
addition, special conditions based on
recommendations from the State agency
may be included in the grant agreement
(EPA Form 5700-20).
The completed grant agreement will be
mailed to you. You should promptly
review the grant agreement. To accept
the grant, you must sign and return
the agreement to EPA within 3 calendar
weeks after receipt (40 CFR, 30.305).
The person signing and accepting the
grant is the authorized representative
(usually the same person who signed
the application form). If there is a
new authorized representative, an
authorizing resolution will 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, note special grant
conditions that require attention
during your project.
CHAPTER 14
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
14.0
PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION
After grant award,
you may initiate
procurement of
construction contracts. Procurement
is discussed in Chapter 16 and you
should comply with guidance in that
chapter concerning the use of your or
EPA's procurement system.
14.1
GRANT INCREASES/
DECREASES
At the time you
submitted your grant
application, you
requested a grant based on your
estimate of allowable project costs
including building costs. Your
building costs may also have included
a "construction contingency"
(typically 10 percent or less of the
estimated building costs) since you
cannot be sure of the costs until the
project is bid. After receipt of
bids, your building costs are more
firmly established and the contingency
should be reduced (typically 2 to
5 percent). The post bid contingency
covers minor changes such as
differences between estimated and
actual quantities of material
on unit price items or unknown
field conditions which may be
encountered.
14.1.1
GRANT INCREASE If the bid prices
from the successful
contractors exceed your estimated
building costs including the
contingency and if the prices are
reasonable and you wish to award the
contracts, you may apply for a grant
increase. You should submit your
request and supporting documents
114
-------
to your reviewing agency. If
appropriate and assuming sufficient
funds remain available in your State's
allotment (most States maintain a
reserve for grant increases), your
grant should be amended by the State
and EPA.
14.1.2
GRANT DECREASE If your building
costs are lower than
estimated in your grant application,
the State agency may initiate
action to reduce your grant to the
appropriate level. By doing so, the
State may recover sufficient funds
from your project and others to allow
additional projects to be funded. A
grant amendment agreement will be sent
to you.
14.2
PRECONSTRUCTION
CONFERENCE
It is recommended
that after construc-
tion contract
award you arrange a preconstruction
(project management) conference.
If deemed necessary, a separate
preconstruction conference may
also be arranged by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Office (EEO),
U.S. Department of Labor (generally
where building costs exceed
$1 million) to insure that contractors
comply with the equal employment
opportunity provisions of applicable
statutes and executive orders.
The preconstruction conference
attendees should include you, your
architect/engineer (A/E), construction
manager, project inspector, all prime
contractors, subcontractors, represen-
tatives from public and private
utilities, and representatives of your
reviewing agency. The purpose of the
preconstruction conference is to
coordinate schedules, review and
emphasize regulatory requirements,
resolve questions, and set the
groundrules for working together
during construction.
You or representatives of your
reviewing agency, if present, should
generally have a checklist of items to
discuss at the conference. Listed
below are some of the more common
items:
o Responsibilities and authority of
each party;
o Interrelationship between
contractor, consultant, municipality,
State, Corp of Engineers, EPA, and
other involved parties;
o Schedules for completion of
project and coordination between
contractors;
o Payment requests from con-
tractors-form, timing, documentation,
retainage;
o Change orders - requests, docu-
mentation, approval levels;
o Minimum wage - posting of wage
rate determination;
o Compliance with local, State and
Federal laws such as Occupational,
Safety, and Health Administration,
Equal Employment Opportunity, minor-
ity, women's, and small businesses,
etc.
The project reviewer may also want to
meet separately with you to discuss
other items not directly affecting the
construction contractors. Discussions
may include items such as:
o Adequate engineering supervision
during construction;
o Reviewing agency onsite
observations;
115
-------
o Management and processing of
change orders and/or claims;
o Processing of payment requests;
o Maintenance of adequate records
for subsequent audit;
o Schedule for sewer system
rehabilitation, if necessary;
o Enactment of sewer use ordinance
and user charge system before the
treatment works is placed in
operation;
o Development, approval and
implementation of the final plan of
operation;
o Continuing A/E services during
the first year of operation;
o Preparation of records for
project closeout.
14.3
MONITORING
CONSTRUCTION
Your grant
application included
an assurance
that you will provide and maintain
competent and adequate engineering
supervision and full-time inspection
of the project. The supervision
and inspection may be provided by
municipal employees (force account
Section 15.3), your A/E or a construc-
tion management firm. The supervisory
services should provide technical
assistance in the preparation and
negotiation of change orders,
processing of contractors' payment
requests, shop drawing reviews,
preparation for regulatory agency
onsite reviews, and assurance that
the project is constructed in
accordance with the approved construc-
tion drawings and specifications,
permit and grant conditions, approved
addenda, change orders, and environ-
mental mitigation measures. The
responsibility for monitoring
construction activities and resolving
problems, however, rests with you.
14.3.1
ONSITE
OBSERVATION
To properly manage
the project, it is
necessary that you
provide adequate engineering and
observation during the course of
construction. Depending on the size
and complexity of the project, your
oversight and inspection may require
periodic site visits or a full-time
onsite inspector. During construc-
tion, the reviewing agency or Corps of
Engineers will make periodic onsite
reviews to ensure that the project
is being managed properly, is on
schedule, and is being constructed
generally in accordance with approved
construction drawings, specifications
and change orders.
It is common practice for most
municipalities to procure an A/E firm
or construction management firm to
supervise building of the project
(the alternative is using qualified
municipal employees). The firm may be
the A/E who prepared the project
design, a different firm specializing
in construction management, or a
combination of both. The traditional
engineering services provided during
the building of a project include:
technical observation of the building
to ensure completion and conformance
with the construction drawings and
specifications; providing expert
opinion on changes to the project
including the preparation of
independent cost estimates; and
in general, acting as a technical
advisor. The specific scope of work
including duties and responsibilities
is enumerated in the A/E subagreement.
116
-------
Although not a complete checklist,
Table 4 illustrates the typical
functional relationships between the
various parties associated with the
construction and performance of the
project.
The reviewing agency will make both
interim and final onsite reviews. In
most cases, the reviewing agency will
provide you with a sample form to be
completed during the onsite review.
You should notify your project team
and contractors of the pending review
and have documents and other necessary
data available for review. Items
typically observed at the time of an
interim onsite review include:
o Adequacy of engineering super-
vision and observation;
o Availability of approved
construction drawings, specifica-
tions, as-built record drawings, and
change orders at the project site;
o General conformance of
construction to approved drawings,
specifications and change orders;
o Spot check of latest estimate of
work-in-place with the actual observed
construction;
o Review of test reports for
materials and equipment;
o Protection and storage of
delivered equipment;
o Display of appropriate project
sign and posting of appropriate
wage rate determination;
o Implementation of special
construction techniques including
erosion and sediment control measures
and other measures to protect the
environment;
o Hiring and training of opera-
tional staff in accordance with the
plan of operation;
o Progress on the preparation of
the O&M manual;
o Progress toward enacting the user
charge system and sewer use ordinance
before beginning operation of the
treatment works;
o Review of existing and pending
change orders and claims;
o Maintenance of schedule for sewer
system rehabilitation if appropriate;
o Adequacy of treatment (no
bypassing) during construction;
Final onsite reviews will be made soon
after your request. The final onsite
review may include the above items and
a determination that:
o Facilities are complete,
operating and meet effluent limita-
tions contained in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit, including pretreatment
requirements;
o Facilities conform to the
approved construction drawings,
specifications and change orders;
o Equipment is operational and
performing satisfactorily;
o Operation and maintenance staff
is hired and trained in start-up and
operational procedures;
o Laboratory facilities are
complete and appropriate tests
are being performed;
o Operation and maintenance (O&M)
manual is onsite and operators are
trained in its use and application;
117
-------
Table 4 Grantee and Contractor Responsibilities
Responsible
party
Functions
Responsibil ity
Needs
Additional
services
Municipality
Manage project
Procure services
Operate facility
Certify compliance
Obtain architec-
tural/engineering
assistance
Obtain legal
assistance
Obtain construction
management
Provide planning
design and/or
construction (force
account)
Provide inspection
Provide review and
VE services
Architectural/
engineering
Design project
Prepare drawings
and specifications
Process compat ability
Insurance for error
and omissions
Subcontracts
Provide shop
drawing review
Construction
management
Provide resident
inspection
Provide OfiM manual ,
start-up services,
and train operators
Provide VE
Construction
contractor
Build facility
Install equipment
Performance
Reliability
Guarantees and
bonds for
equipment and
performance
Proposed cost
savings design
and/or construc-
tion modifications
Equipment
suppl ie-
Fabricate and deliver
equipment
Performance
Rel iabil ity
Warranties or bonds
for equipment and
performance
Provide start-up
services
Provide operator
training
118
-------
o Accounting records are in place
and available for audit;
o Sewer system rehabilitation is on
schedule, if appropriate;
o User charge systems and sewer use
ordinances have been enacted;
o Provision for continuation of
engineering services during the first
year of operation;
o Flood insurance is provided
for the useful life of the project;
o Property management procedures
and property inventory is
satisfactory.
The onsite reviewer will discuss
any deficiencies, furnish you a
copy of his completed report and
confirm, in writing, agreements
resulting from your discussions.
These services may also be provided
under separate subagreement.
Services for periodic site visits,
shop drawings review, and other
engineering services may be included
in your consulting engineers
subagreement. Services for construc-
tion management or resident
inspections are usually provided by
separate subagreement.
14.4
PAYMENT REQUESTS Interim and final
AND LIMITATIONS grant payment
requests are
prepared and processed in accordance
with the procedures outlined in
Section 15.4. At the time of
onsite review, payments will be
compared with the actual construc-
tion completed. Construction
contractor payment requests are
based on the work completed or equip-
ment delivered to the site and
are generally supported by your
contractor's estimate of work-in-place
as approved by the A/E. Grant
payments are limited to 50 percent
until a satisfactory final plan
of operation has been approved
and 90 percent until a satisfactory
O&M manual has been approved by the
reviewing agency.
14.5
PLAN OF
OPERATION
The plan of opera-
tion (Section 12.4)
is important to
ensure successful start-up of your
treatment works and to promote
continued compliance with your NPDES
permit. Initially, the plan of
operation focuses on staffing,
training and operation of the
treatment works. However, equally
important are the administrative
aspects of protecting your investment.
Each year an adequate budget is
prepared identifying the basis
for determining the annual O&M cost
and the cost of personnel. You, as
the project owner, will establish
salary levels which should be
commensurate with the complexity
of operating your treatment works
and adequate enough to attract
and retain competent and dedicated
employees.
14.6
PROJECT
PERFORMANCE
There are a number
of requirements
which you must
satisfy prior to beginning the 1-year
project performance period. These
requirements include a complete
project schedule, as well as other
activities to be completed during your
project construction and operation
phases.
14.6.1
PROJECT Of extreme import-
SCHEDULE ance in managing
your project and to
119
-------
I its operational performance is a
I properly prepared project schedule.
The construction grant regulations
require you to develop a project
schedule specifying key events. This
schedule must be included in the grant
application.
A project schedule can be a time-line
diagram. The actual project schedule
must include dates of scheduled
activities. Figure 6 is a partial
project schedule that shows only
project events that precede the
1-year performance period which
directly impacts the period. The
construction grant regulations
require that other events be shown on
the project schedule, such as public
notices of proposed procurement
actions, subagreement awards, issuance
of notice to proceed with building,
and the one-year performance period.
It is recommended that advice from the
design engineer, project manager, or
construction manager be sought when
you develop this schedule.
It is important to note that the
timing of both the completion of
building and initiation of operation,
which are shown on Figure 6, should
coincide. However, these dates may
not coincide because your complete
wastewater treatment system typically
includes more than one project.
That is, segmented treatment works,
interceptor sewers, pumping station,
and treatment plant may be built under
different grant agreements. If
completion of building each of these
projects does not coincide, wastewater
flows may not be available to each
project so that initiation of the
one-year performance period cannot
occur at the same time. You should
schedule the date of initiation of
operation when the project is capable
of being used for purposes for which
it was planned, designed, and built
whether or not the enforceable
requirements of the act apply to that
particular project. It is EPA's
intent that one performance period and
certificate be scheduled for each
project.
A project refers only to the
activities or tasks identified in the
grant agreement.
Completion of building is the date
when: all but minor components of a
project have been built, all equipment
is operational, and the project is
capable of functioning as designed.
Initiation of operation is the date on
which use of the project begins for
the purposes that it was planned,
designed, and built.
All components of the wastewater
treatment system must be complete
prior to initiation of the 1-year
performance period. Figure 7 shows
the key project events that occur
after initiation of operation and
these events should be a part of your
project schedule.
To assist in achieving proper
performance of the project, you must
select the engineer or engineering
firm principally responsible for
either supervising construction or
providing engineering services during
construction. The selected firm
serves as the prime engineer and
directs the operation of the newly-
built project during the first year of
operation, train operating personnel,
and prepares curricula and training
material for operating personnel.
Also, the prime engineer is expected
to provide additional services
including, but not limited to: revise
the O&M manual for the project as
120
-------
STEP :
0
STEP ;
APPRO
'
5 AWARD
R
2 C< 3
VALS
NOT TO
EXCEED
12 MONTHS
COMPL
OF BU
50% PAYMENTS 90% PAYMENT
(FROM EPA TO \ (FROM EPA TO \
GRANTEE) \ GRANTEE) \
\ \
ETION
LDING
INITIATION OF
OPERATION
— M/
, //
/ / / A
/ / / (SEE Figure 7 )
APPROVAL OF
FINAL PLAN
OF OPERATION
APPROVAL OF
O&M MANUAL
PROJECT INITIATION
START-UP SERVICES
SUBMIT DRAFT
PLAN OF OPERATION
Figure 6 Project Schedule: Pre-Performance Certification Period
121
-------
INITIATION
OF OPERATION
POST-CORRECTIVE ACTION
AFFIRMATIVE PROJECT
CERTIFICATION
AFFIRMATIVE
PROJECT CERTIFICATION
APPLICABLE TO
NON-AFFIRMATIVELY
CERTIFIED PROJECTS
CORRECTIVE ACTION
REPORT AND SCHEDULE
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
12 MONTHS
PERFORMANCE PERIOD SERVICES
CORRECTIVE ACTION
GRANT SANCTIONS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Figure 7 Project Schedule: Performance Certification Period
122
-------
necessary to accommodate actual
operating experience, and advise the
grantee whether the project is meeting
the project performance standards.
These services must be included in
your Step 3 or Step 2+3 grant applica-
tion in order to be considered as
project costs. The engineer that has
prime responsibility for providing
these performance period services may
subcontract these services subject to
the EPA's procurement regulation
(40 CFR Part 33).
If the enforceable requirements of the
Act change between time of grant award
and the end of the first year of
operation, you must use the enforce-
able requirements of the Act under
which the project was planned and
designed to meet. The compliance
schedule and other requirements
established in the NPDES permit
for the facility must be used when
you establish dates on the project
schedule.
Although you are responsible for
planning, designing, and building so
that the project meets its performance
standards, the risk associated with a
negative certification can be shared
with other parties to the project
through more assurance, guarantees,
indemnity, or other contractual
requirements from any party to a
subagreement or contract under the
project. Nothing in the law or
regulations prevents you from
requiring these additional require-
ments. By requiring additional
assurances and guarantees you are
reducing your financial risk in
the case that a nonaffirmative
certification is submitted. Costs
for extending warranties and bonds
beyond the traditional 1-year period
(but not beyond the 1-year performance
period) are grant allowable costs
if the costs are reasonable and
necessary for ensuring achievement of
an affirmative certification.
Figure 8 shows the legal relationships
and the flow of assurances,
guarantees, indemnity or other
contractual requirements that may
exist between the grantee and various
parties in a construction grant
project. You should assign specific
responsibilities through subagreements
and contracts to each party to the
project. These subagreements and
contracts should clearly define
the specific services expected and
responsibilities of each party.
Properly worded documents will permit
you to hold responsible parties
accountable.
Upon completion of the one-year
performance period, you must certify
to your reviewing agency whether
or not the project is meeting
its performance standards. If
a sewer rehabilitation program was
undertaken as part of the project
being certified, you must include
the results of this rehabilitation
program as part of your Certificate of
Performance that you furnish to your
reviewing agency.
A sample project certification
letter is shown on Figure 9 for your
information. Documentation of whether
the project conforms with its
design specifications and effluent
limitations is developed by the
engineer as part of the engineering
services rendered during the 1-year
period. This documentation should be
kept in your project file and it must
substantiate the certification letter
you submit to your reviewing agency.
For discharging projects, the project
performance standards include design
specifications (i.e., includes
123
-------
POSSIBLE ASSIGNMENT OF
ASSURANCES, GUARANTEES, INDEMNITY OR
OTHER CONTRACTURAL REQUIREMENTS
EPA
I
AGREEMENT
GRANTEE
RESPONSIBLE FOR
-COMPLYING WITH
REGULATORY REQUIRE-
MENTS AND GRANT
CONDITIONS
SUBAQREEMENT
PLANNING AND
DESIGN SERVICES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
- PREPARING FACILITIES
PLAN, DRAWINGS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
A/E
SUBAQREEMENT
STEP 3 A/E SERVICES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
- PROVIDING BASIC AND
SPECIAL SERVICES
INCLUDING
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
A/E
SUBAGREEMENT
PERFORMANCE SERVICES
RESPONSIBLE FOR
- DIRECTING OPERATIONS
- REVISING O&M MANUAL
- TRAINING PERSONNEL
- PREPARING TRAINING
MATERIALS
- ADVISING GRANTEE ON
PROJECT PERFORMANCE
A/E
PROJECT
PERFORMANCE
CERTIFICATION
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
RESPONSIBLE FOR
- DETERMINING CAUSE OF
FAILURE AND DEVELOPING A
CORRECTIVE ACTION
SCHEDULE
A/E
SUBAGREEMENT
BUILDING
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
- COMPLYING WITH PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND
OTHER CONTRACTUAL
REQUIREMENTS
- CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR
SUBAGREEMENT
SUPPLIERS
RESPONSIBLE FOR
- PROVIDING EQUIPMENT,
MATERIALS AND
SUPPLIES
- EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL
SUPPLIERS
A/E
LEGEND
-»- -LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS
•^ — — ^»- -POSSIBLE ASSURANCES, GUARANTEES, INDEMNITY OR OTHER CONTRACTURAL REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACT -NOT ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT PARTICIPATION
SUBAGREEMENT -ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT PARTICIPATION
Figure 8 Project Performance Certification
124
-------
As required by the Clean Water Act under Title II, Section 204(d) and
40 CFR,35.2218(c) we (grantee) certify that the
project built under EPA Grant No. (does, does not) meet the
design specifications, and effluent limitations and all other project performance
standards.
Grantee
Signature and T«itle of Date
Authorized Representative
Figure 9 Sample Certificates of Performance for Publ icily Owned Treatment Works
125
-------
engineer's report, facility plan,
detailed plans and specifications)
and effluent requirements. For
nondischarging projects such as
interceptor sewers, pumping stations,
etc., the project performance
standards include only design
specifications. In the case of
projects that include sewer rehabili-
tation the quantity of infiltration
and inflow (I/I) eliminated is
a component of the performance
standards. You should include in
your grant application project's
performance standards that you will
certify at the conclusion of the
1-year performance period.
Attainment of project performance
standards means meeting effluent
limitations and design specifications
under design year equivalent flows and
loads, as well as under initial year
flows and loads. When your project
has more than one liquid or solid
process train, diverting flows into
each train during project's perform-
ance period, when total flow is less
than design, will assist in achieving
design year equivalent flows for
project certification.
14.6.2
I/I As part of your
REHABILITATION post const ructi on
project evaluation
and prior to final certification,
you will be required to determine
the amount of I/I eliminated. An
essential part of this determination
is the identification of the actual
amount of I/I reduction that has been
achieved through the corrective
program. This requires an analysis
and evaluation of system flow records
during the wet-weather season
immediately following system
upgrading. A flow analysis will be
needed to determine the overall
reduction of I/I as reflected at the
treatment plant. Accordingly, unless
the trunk lines to the treatment plant
are surcharged during the storm
periods, I/I flow data should be
collected at the plant rather than
at multiple points throughout the
collection system. The Sewer System
Evaluation Survey (SSES) should not be
repeated, and information developed
should be limited to that required to
develop a postconstruction I/I flow
figure. This flow figure compared
with the original I/I flow will
provide the actual percentage
reduction achieved.
It will also be necessary to identify
the actual costs of system rehabilita-
tion associated with the I/I
reduction. These costs should include
the cost of design and SSES costs
expended to identify acceptable
corrective action. This system
rehabilitation cost (sunk cost)
is then compared against the
Transportation and Treatment cost
curve used in the original cost-
effectiveness analysis of the
SSES (Method 2, MCD-19). If the
percentage I/I reduction is equal
to or greater than the projected
126
-------
reduction represented by Transporta-
tion and Treatment costs reduced
by the sunk cost, then the cost
benefit ratio is equal to or less than
1.0, and the completed program is
considered to be cost effective.
Ideally, the original SSES would have
produced separate cost-effectiveness
analyses for infiltration and inflow.
If this was done, the postconstruction
evaluation would have to match the
original approach.
It is technically sound to perform
cost-effectiveness analysis for
infiltration and inflow separately.
However, if this were done in the
original SSES, you should separate the
combined cost-effectiveness analysis
curves prior to determining the result
of the rehabilitation program.
Figure 10 shows a graphical repre-
sentation of this evaluation process.
This figure would be taken directly
from the SSES conducted during the
planning period. While the planned
corrective costs shown here are
represented by "D," matching the low
point of the -Total Cost Curve, the
actual corrective costs (sunk costs)
are shown slightly larger, represented
by "D1." The percent reduction read
from the Transportation and Treatment
cost curve at cost reduction "D"1 is
indicated at point "A" and represents
a cost/benefit ratio of 1.0. Any
actual I/I reduction equal to or
greater than this percentage is
considered to be cost effective, even
though it may be less than the optimum
percent reduction planned during the
facilities planning stage. In other
words, the actual cost of your I/I
reduction efforts must result in
reducing your transportation and
treatment costs by at least the same
amount.
14.6.3
ENGINEERING The construction
SERVICES grant regulations
require that the
engineer or engineering firm provide
the following services during the
1-year performance period:
o Direct operation of the project;
Directing the operation involves
oversight and observation of the unit
processes and equipment which make up
the treatment works. Directing
the operation of the project does
not involve the engineer in the
administrative details of daily
operation of the project such as
individual personnel transactions
or direct supervision of your
municipality's employees. Although,
where needed, the engineer could
provide hands-on demonstrations, fine
tuning, and make operating decisions
to be effected by your personnel.
Other activities could include:
- briefing municipal officials
and plant personnel on the status
of project performance program and
overall project operation;
- reviewing user charges,
budgets., salaries or other financial
management items;
- providing assistance with
setting up and tracking warranty
files,
- reviewing personnel systems,
record development, laboratory
procedures, process systems, safety
and emergency systems.
I o Train or provide for training of
| operating personnel;
A training program should include
instruction in operation and control
of specific unit processes and
127
-------
TOTAL COST CURVE
LLJ
o
O ill
£<
LLJ
C/J
O
O
CO
8
CO
POINT "A"
MINIMUM
ACCEPTABLE I/I
REDUCTION
D = PLANNED
CORRECTIVE COST
50
% INFILTRATION/INFLOW REDUCTION
Figure 10 I/I Reduction Acceptability Analysis
MINIMUM PLANNED
TOTAL COST POINT
TRANSPORT AND
TREATMENT COST
CURVE
PLANNED I/I
REDUCTION
CORRECTION
COST CURVE
100
128
-------
equipment during normal and abnormal
conditions. Also, instructions should
be provided in areas such as: flow
measurement and sampling procedures,
laboratory procedures, maintenance
management system, preventive/
corrective maintenance, records
management system and financial
management system.
o Prepare curricula and training
materials for operating personnel;
Curricula and training materials
should be applicable to a specific
facility and scheduling of partic-
ipants should be compatible with the
facilities daily operations. The
trainer should have actual operational
experience relevant to topic
discussed.
o Revise the O&M manual to
accommodate actual operating
experience;
The revised O&M manual should be
distributed to your reviewing
agency that conducts operation and
maintenance inspections at your
completed project.
o Advise you whether the project is
meeting its performance standards:
Documentation of project's actual
performance during the 1-year period
can be accomplished by maintaining
ongoing records. This documentation
can be used in preparing periodic
reports that the engineer submits to
you and when the engineer advises you
whether or not the project is meeting
its performance standards. This
documentation should include:
measurements of influent and effluent
quality/quantity including enforceable
requirements of the Act and unit
process/equipment performance, taking
into account both initial and design
year flows and organic loads, as it
relates to design specifications.
The engineer should advise you of the
following:
o The capability and performance
of the staff to effectively and
efficiently operate and maintain
the facility under normal, alternate,
and emergency modes of operation;
o The capability and performance of
the organization to effectively
accomplish necessary administrative,
management, and financial utility
functions;
o Actual costs in relation to
prior estimates of costs, the adequacy
of revenue sources and actual
charges necessary to meet revenue
requirements.
Generally, the engineering services
during the 1-year performance period
should be phased down during the one
year period while simultaneously
making sure that your operating staff
can properly operate the project on
their own. The level-of-effort of the
engineering services during this one
year period should be appropriate for
the project's scope. Generally,
this means that project performance
engineering services that are both
reasonable and necessary for an
interceptor sewer would be less than
for a pumping station. Likewise
engineering services would be less for
a pumping station than for a treatment
plant.
14.6.4
CORRECTIVE
ACTION
an
If, at the end of
this 1-year period
you cannot provide
affirmative certification, a
129
-------
corrective action report and schedule
must be developed and submitted to
your reviewing agency upon completion
of the one year period. Costs
associated with developing this
corrective action report schedule and
implementing corrective action are not
allowable project costs. If the
project is a failed Innovative and
Alternative (I&A) project, then costs
associated with the corrective action
report and implementation may be
allowable grant costs. The corrective
action report must include:
o An analysis of the cause of the
project's inability to meet the
performance standards;
o A schedule for undertaking in a
timely manner the corrective action
necessary to bring the project into
compliance;
o The scheduled date for certifying
to the reviewing agency that the
project is meeting its performance
standards.
After the corrective action has been
completed you must provide your
reviewing Agency with an affirmative
certification.
In addition to the above requirements,
your corrective action report should
also include the following:
o A discussion of appropriate and
structural solutions that will be
effective for the design life of the
facility;
o A discussion of action to
mitigate, insofar as possible,
adverse environmental impacts of
unsatisfactory performance until
corrective action is completed;
o A discussion of all appropriate
recourse available in procurement
related insurance, warranties,
guaranties, bonds, and indemnities to
effect timely, complete, and permanent
corrections.
14.7
ABANDONMENT Federally funded
treatment works must
be operated and maintained by the
grantee for their design life in
accordance with grant conditions and
enforceable requirements of the
Clean Water Act. Recovery of federal
funds are not required when the
treatment works are beyond their
design life.
If based on changed conditions you
propose to abandon a project, or
portion thereof, prior to the end of
its design life, you must request
disposition instructions in accordance
with Part 30 of Title 40. EPA will
make a determination of whether
to recover Federal funds for the
abandoned treatment works.
In making this determination, EPA will
review any written documentation you
provide and will consider among other
things how NPDES permit conditions
will be maintained, including
provisions for alternative treatment
of wastes emanating from the abandoned
treatment works (at no additional
Federal expense), so that enforceable
requirements of the Act and NPDES
permit conditions are met.
Modification or replacement funds
may be available for failed I/A
technologies (Section 15.2).
14.8
WASTEWATER
PROCESS INFLUENT
VARIATIONS
When the character-
isties of the
wastewater to the
130
-------
publically owned treatment works, or
the* liquid/ solids/gas feed to a
unit process or equipment item are
substantially different from those
specified, or, if not specified, those
normally anticipated in treatment of
municipal wastewater, the contractor
should promptly notify the owner, or
his representative, of the apparent
differences. He should request a
meeting to discuss alternate methods
of conducting field performance
testing when such methods are required
for acceptance.
When agreement cannot be reached
(regarding whether characteristics are
substantially different or regarding
alternative methods of testing), an
independent evaluation should be
obtained by the recipient (owner).
Based on the evaluation, recommenda-
tions for conducting field performance
testing and recommended criteria for
acceptance should be developed. If
appropriate, an adjustment may be made
in the contract. If an agreement
cannot be reached, the matter should
be handled under appropriate contract
provisions.
14.9
CHANGE ORDERS A change order is an
order written by you
to the construction contractor
authorizing an addition, deletion, or
revision in the work and/or the time
of completion within the limits of the
construction contract after it has
been executed. It is a specific type
of contract modification which does
not go beyond the general scope of the
existing contract.
The change order management procedure
is used when a need is recognized for
a change in the terms or conditions of
existing signed contract documents.
It generally originates as a claim or
a recommendation for a change from the
construction contractor or as a
request-for-proposal from you, seeking
a change to existing contract
documents. The change order is
necessary to increase or decrease the
contract cost or work, interrupt or
terminate the project, revise the
completion date, alter the design, or
in general, to implement any deviation
from the original contract terms
and conditions.
The successful completion of the
change order management process
depends upon the successful execution
of the responsibilities of each of the
participants: owner, engineer,
construction contractor, and reviewing
agency.
The bilateral change, rather than the
unilateral change, is one agreed to by
both parties, and is most desirable
since it minimizes disputes at a later
date. Should meaningful negotiations
fail, you have the authority to make a
unilateral change within the scope of
the contract. In order to move the
project forward, you can issue a
change order without construction
contractor agreement under a model
"changes" subagreement clause. In
this case, the construction contractor
must perform the work, but may elect
to dispute the terms and could recover
additional costs from you under the
same clause. In some cases, State law
may give the construction contractor
specific rights of recovery.
14.9.1
DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
You are responsible
for the adminis-
tration and
implementation of the project for
which EPA Construction Grant assist-
ance is awarded. In accepting the
grant, you have agreed to pay the
non-Federal costs of treatment works
131
-------
construction associated with the
project. You are also financially
responsible for any additional non-
Federal costs associated with a
change. Should the reviewing agency
determine that the change order is not
allowable for Federal participation,
the entire change order cost would
then be considered non-Federal costs.
You are the one who must agree to any
change in the conditions of the
construction contract because you are
the only party that has entered into
the contract with the construction
contractor.
You may retain a construction manager,
particularly if your own forces do not
have the expertise or additional time
available to properly manage the
additional responsibilities. EPA
encourages the construction manager
concept, but it should be discussed
with the reviewing agency before any
commitments are made. While the
construction manager's role and
contractual relationship with you
differ from those of the engineer, it
is possible for the engineer to assume
both roles.
Once a grant is awarded and construc-
tion is under way, you should
not presume that the engineer,
construction contractor, and
regulatory agencies will oversee the
management of the project. In the
best interest of the community, you
should actively manage the project to
completion. You should be convinced
that a proposed contract change
is necessary and reasonable regardless
of Federal participation in the cost.
You are responsible for negotiating
fair and reasonable cost and time
adjustments for a necessary change and
should ensure competent, timely
processing of change order requests.
Owner's Responsibilities
You are responsible for:
o Determining whether a change
order is warranted;
o Negotiating a fair and reasonable
price for required changes, or
authorizing the engineer to do so;
o Maintaining costing records for
the change including records of
negotiation;
o Maintaining current and accurate
fiscal projections of contract and
project completion costs;
o Resolving disputes which may have
arisen as a result of a proposal for a
change;
o Notifying the reviewing agency in
writing of events or proposed changes
which require a grant amendment
(Prior Approval Requirements,
Section 14.9.1).
Engineer's Role
The engineer will be expected to:
o Act as consultant to the owner
during the construction of the project
and on changes that are proposed;
o Provide expert opinion on whether
a change is appropriate or not, and if
so, why;
o Prepare a fair and reasonable
independent cost and time estimate on
the proposed change to verify that the
estimate prepared by the construction
contractor is fair and reasonable;
o Negotiate change orders if
authorized to do so by the Owner.
132
-------
Construction Contractor's
Responsibilities
In order to expedite the processing of
a change order, the construction
contractor will be expected to:
o Furnish and certify the correct-
ness of sufficient cost and pricing
data to enable the owner to determine
the necessity and reasonableness of
cost and amounts proposed, and to
enable the reviewing agency to
determine the eligibility and allow-
ability of costs proposed;
o Submit change order proposals
within the time allowed by the
contract and enter into meaningful
negotiations on a necessary contract
change;
o Comply with the record keeping
and accounting requirements set by EPA
regulations appropriate to the dollar
amount of the change order;
o Maintain a current construction
schedule, such as a critical path
diagram, with the level of detail
based on project size and complexity.
Prior Approval Requirements
In order to obtain change order
approval, written approval from
the reviewing agency is, in some
cases, required prior to the start of
work associated with the change,
because of the significant effect on
performance or cost of the project.
Conditions which require prior written
approval (which is always a formal
grant amendment) include the
following:
o Project changes which:
- Alter the project performance
standards;
- Alter the type of treatment to
be provided;
- Substantially alter the
facilities plan, design drawings
and specifications, or the
location, size, capacity, or
quality of any major part of the
project;
- Increase or decrease the EPA
grant needed to complete the
project;
- Significantly delay or accelerate
the project schedule.
o In addition, for contract changes
involving dollar amounts of $100,000
or more on grants awarded before May
12, 1982, if:
- Any single item (additive or
deductive) exceeds $100,000;
- No single item has a value of
$100,000, but the total price
of the change order is over
$100,000;
- The total of the additive items
of work in the change order
exceeds $100,000, or the total of
the deductive items of work in
the change order exceeds
$100,000, even though the net
value of the change order is less
than $100,000.
o However, related work must not be
split into two or more amendments or
change orders merely to keep it under
$100,000 and avoid the need for prior
approval.
o For grants awarded on or after
May 12, 1982, the reviewing agency
may review proposed change orders
over $100,000 if the owner has not
133
-------
self-certified its procurement system.
Under these circumstances, the owner
should request prior review.
Prior approval is not required for
changes to correct minor errors or
minor changes not addressed by the
above-mentioned prior approval
requirements. It is also not required
for emergency changes as defined
below.
It should be noted that the reviewing
agency will respond to requests for
prior approval as promptly as possible
in order to avoid undue project
delays. Therefore, the approval may
only cover the concept of the change,
even though certified cost data must
be furnished when prior approval is
required because the amount of the
change is $100,000 or more. Because
of this, the approval could be
subject to revision based on
later review of the necessity and
reasonableness of quantities, cost
analysis, and allowability of costs
(40 CFR 35.2204).
Emergency Changes
An emergency may be described as
an unforeseen combination of circum-
stances leading to a hazard to life,
property destruction, or health which
can only be alleviated by immediate
action. Although prior approval is
not required for emergency changes,
the reviewing agency should be
notified as soon as possible after
the emergency has been put under
control if the work would otherwise
have required prior approval.
Disputes
Many of the delays and misunder-
standings surrounding the modification
process can be avoided by effective
and frequent communication between
you and the construction contractor.
You bear the entire responsibility
to settle construction contractor
claims. When a claim is submitted,
you should request and obtain a
change order proposal from the
construction contractor, investigate
the circumstances promptly, reach a
tentative decision on the merits, and
notify the construction contractor
of that decision, justifying the
position, based upon the plans,
specifications, and other contract
documents. In reaching that decision,
you may find it advisable to obtain
legal advice or to consult with
representatives of the reviewing
agency.
If you determine that a change order
proposal is meritorious, it should be
negotiated and settled through a
bilaterally-executed change order. If
you determine that a change order
proposal is unmeritorious, the
construction contractor may decide to
pursue the claim through litigation,
arbitration, or other form of dispute
resolution. In that case, you may
request the reviewing agency's advice
and assistance prior to assessing
and/or defending against the claim.
Reviewing agency technical and
legal assistance can also be requested
for the administration and enforcement
of construction contracts, especially
where a dispute may jeopardize
completion of the project.
14.9.2
CONDITIONS THAT
MAY WARRANT A
CHANGE ORDER
A change order
proposal may
originate from your
own perception of
the situation or from a request by the
construction contractor.
134
-------
The following are common categories of
conditions which generally give rise
to a need for contract changes:
o Differing site conditions;
o Errors and omissions in plans and
specifications;
o Changes instituted by regulatory
agencies;
o Design changes;
o Overruns/underruns in quantities;
o Time of completion.
Differing Site Conditions
A "differing site conditions clause"
or its equivalent in an EPA grant-
assisted construction contract will
describe differing site conditions
as:
o Subsurface or latent physical
conditions at the site differing
materially from those indicated in the
contract; or
o Unknown physical conditions at
the site, of an unusual nature,
differing materially from those
ordinarily encountered and generally
recognized as inherent in work of
the character provided for in the
contract.
The premises on which a differing
site conditions clause in an EPA
grant-assisted construction contract
rests may be described as follows:
o Each bidder is not expected to
perform an independent subsurface site
investigation prior to submission of
bid. However, bidders are generally
advised by the contract documents to
make a site inspection;
o The contract bid price is
proportional to the degree of risk the
construction contractor must provide
for in its competitive bid;
o The most cost-effective construc-
tion is obtained by accepting certain
risks for latent or subsurface site
conditions.
Once the information on differing site
conditions is assembled, you should be
in a position to determine if the site
conditions differ materially from
those indicated in the contract or
those ordinarily encountered, and
whether this will cause an increase in
the construction contractor's cost or
the time to complete the work. If you
determine that a change order is
needed, it should provide supporting
documentation including reports,
pictures, plans, and whatever is
appropriate to demonstrate where and
how actual conditions deviated from
the plan or from conditions that
should have been anticipated.
Errors and Omissions in Plans
and Specification?
Errors and omissions are usually
design or drafting deficiencies in the
plans and specifications. Errors on
plans and specifications -are items
which are shown incorrectly, while
omissions are items which are not
shown at al 1.
Some errors may lead to disputes
between the engineer and construction
contractor. You are responsible for
resolving the dispute and may have
difficulty in assessing the situation,
since the engineer may have also been
the designer and may strongly feel
that the design was adequate.
Moreover, there may be no clearly
discernible line between design errors
135
-------
and faulty materials or installation
by the construction contractor. You
may seek opinions from independent
third parties experienced in modern
design practices to aid in the more
complex decision making, but should
request prior approval from the
reviewing agency before contracting
with a third party.
The terms of an EPA grant-assisted
designer's contract require the
correction of errors/omissions in the
drawings or specifications without
additional compensation.
Time spent negotiating an engineer/
construction contractor dispute
should not extend the time of
completion. However, a finding of
design deficiency may be grounds for
time extension equal to that delay
caused by the error itself.
You should evaluate these requests
carefully, since not all errors or
omissions necessitate a change to the
contract price and/or time. While the
construction contractor is entitled to
an equitable adjustment, he may have
incurred no additional expense and may
have no right to a claim even though
an error or omission has occurred.
If expense was decreased, a credit
could be due. You should pursue the
available remedies against all parties
who are responsible for the added
costs of a change to protect against
vicarious liability for the improper
actions of others.
Changes Instituted by Changes
jn Regulatory Requirements
Compliance to changes in the law or
in the requirements of government
agencies may necessitate a change
order. Typical examples are: changes
due to the imposition of the reserve
capacity limitation requirements,
revisions to building codes, or
revised road construction plans. The
need for this type of change should be
well documented with sources and
dates. Justification for change
should include correspondence, records
and notes demonstrating that the
requirements could not have been
incorporated into the contract
documents prior to bid date.
You should review the documentation
for this kind of request carefully to
demonstrate that this is indeed a
change.
Design Changes
A design change is a modification to
an existing design which can be
constructed and will operate properly
without modification. In order to
warrant consideration, it should
meet one or more of the following
conditions:
o Be cost-effective. That is,
offer a savings in excess of all costs
associated with the change order
including future operation and
maintenance costs;
o Respond to a proposal based on a
construction-incentive contract
clause.
Design changes usually originate as
proposals volunteered by the construc-
tion contractor, recommended by the
engineer, or requested by you. You
may see certain benefits such as
reduced operating costs or improved
operating efficiency. However, any
such proposal deserves particularly
careful analysis because the plans and
specifications have already been
determined to be adequate for project
purposes by the reviewing agency.
136
-------
You must receive prior written
approval from the reviewing agency
before authorizing changes which
substantially alter the design, scope,
type of treatment, location, size,
capacity, quality of any major item
of equipment, or time to project
completion.
Considerations relating to design
changes fall into five categories:
general, substitution, revised site
location, additions, and deletions.
o General
On all proposals for design changes,
you should consider who originated the
proposal, how it will differ from the
original contract, when an answer will
be needed, why the alternative was
not considered during design, whether
this is the most cost-effective
alternative, who will guarantee the
design changes, whether the change
affects the timing or cost of other
contracts, whether the change will
affect operation and maintenance, and
what the secondary effects are.
o Substitution
Substituion is the exchange of
specified equipment, material, or
construction technique for another of
equal, better, or lesser quality. The
substitution may require a different
installation technique from the
design, with a resulting change in
installation costs which far outweighs
differences in material costs.
o Relocation of Site
Relocation of site is a highly
undesirable circumstance, since it
opens Pandora's box to construction
contractor claims, especially when
done hastily in response to some
unforeseen conflict. You should
consider all secondary effects and
be assured that a site relocation is
the only feasible alternative.
o Additions
You should insure that proposed
additions are within contract scope
and project scope.
o Deletions
Major deletions should not be accepted
at face value. Often a careful review
will reveal very extensive costs and
secondary effects.
Overruns/Underruns in Quantities
Oyerruns/underruns occur when a
difference develops between the
quantity estimated in the bid schedule
and the quantity actually required
to complete the bid item. These
differences occur only in contracts
which are formulated as a series of
bid unit prices for each unit (cubic
yard, linear foot, etc.) of that item
installed. They do not affect lump
sum firm fixed price bids. When the
differences are considerable, it can
result in an unreasonable loss to you
or the construction contractor. You
and the engineer should be alert to
identify significant overrun/underrun
trends as early as possible and
avoid obligating funds which are not
available. If significant overruns or
underruns do occur, then the contract
price will be adjusted accordingly as
appropriate.
When change orders increase or
decrease the quantity of original
contract items, you may need to review
the unit price to allow for reasonable
adjustment if there is a contractual
"variations" clause where:
137
-------
o You incur unreasonable expense
when an item priced too high has heavy
overruns;
o The construction contractor
sustains loss due to heavy overruns in
an item priced too low;
o The construction contractor must
absorb expenditures of general
overhead costs which were included in
the unit price for an item that was
only partially used.
Most contracts contain provisions for
significant differences in the "as
built" quantities when compared with
the estimated quantities. If the
final quantity differs from the
original bid quantity by 15 percent or
more, (less than 85 percent—more than
115 percent) you should consider
negotiating new unit prices. You may
negotiate an equitable adjustment in
the unit price for that differential
which exceeds the 15 percent margin.
Engineers are not always able to
predict contract quantities to plus
or minus 15 percent in advance.
Realizing this, construction
contractors sometimes speculate by
entering high unit prices on those
items they expect will overrun and low
unit prices on those items which may
underrun significantly. The technique
is referred to as an unbalanced bid.
The result may be unbalanced unit
prices or prices which are not
proportional to the estimated
construction costs. However, where
the construction contractor has large
overruns in units where unit prices
were underbid and there is no
variations clause in the contract, a
proposal to modify those unit prices
may be developed. It should be
evaluated on the basis of the
foregoing discussion.
Additional clauses may have been
included in the contract to minimize
incentive for speculative bid unit
prices such as to:
o Consider overruns/underruns for
renegotiation only on major items
(e.g., unit price multiplied by
quantity equals or exceeds 10 percent
of contract dollar amount) or high
risk items (foundation excavation).
The construction contractor's
competitively bid unit prices are
presumed sufficiently balanced that
only large changes to major items will
create an unfair hardship to the
construction contractor or you. From
another point of view, the increased
cost (or savings) resulting from an
unbalanced unit price may be presumed
distributed over the other contract
items;
o Place a ceiling or maximum
permissible change allowable in the
unit price, e.g., 25 percent;
o Establish a minimum amount
payable under the item to cover fixed
costs.
A summary change order to establish
the final quantities on a unit price
contract is an accepted practice.
However, you should recognize the
purpose and application of contract
clauses which were intended to
minimize unfair advantage and expense
to you or the construction contractor
caused by significant differences.
These clauses are not necessarily
justification for a change in price.
Time of Completion
Six conditions impact time of
completion, which is equally as
important as costs: termination
for convenience, termination for
138
-------
default, suspension of work, directed
acceleration, time extensions, and
constructive acceleration. It should
be pointed out that termination and
suspension are not common actions on
public sector construction.
o Termination for Convenience
You have the right to terminate any or
all portions of the contract work at
any time during the course of the
project, even though neither party has
violated the contract or failed to
perform. You must follow a prescribed
course of notification and assume
control and ownership of facilities
constructed to date. The construction
contractor is entitled to an equitable
cost adjustment.
o Termination for Default
If the construction contractor fails
to perform all or portions of the work
with sufficient diligence to ensure
completion of the contract within the
allotted contract time plus time
extensions, you may terminate the
construction contractor's right to
proceed. You assume ownership of
facilities constructed to date, and
can complete the project with your own
forces or by using another contractor.
The construction contractor is
entitled to an equitable adjustment
which includes: payment for work done
and materials supplied to date,
deduction of any additional cost over
and above the contract amount which
you incur to complete the project, and
deduction for damages sustained by you
due to the construction contractor's
default.
o Suspension of Work
You have the right to temporarily
suspend or interrupt portions or
all of the work for an appropriate
period of time. In a few cases,
the construction contractor may be
entitled to an equitable adjustment
for any additional costs caused by
this suspension.
o Directed Acceleration
You may determine that portions of
the work or the entire contract must
be accelerated from the original
contract schedule. While directing
acceleration of the work may be
procedurally similar to ordering a
temporary suspension, the construction
contractor is generally less able to
change the work schedule without
additional cost.
o Time Extensions
You may grant a time extension to the
construction contractor for good
cause. Otherwise, the construction
contractor could be liable for
contractual penalties, if any,
resulting from failure to perform
within the allotted time. A time
extension due to weather should
be granted only for working days
(generally Monday through Friday,
unless overtime is expected) in excess
of those expected under "normal"
weather conditions of the project
location. A commonly used mechanism
for controlling unjustified delays in
contract completion is a liquidated
damages clause in the contract. The
clause generally assesses a dollar
amount to be paid to you from the
construction contractor for each day
that the time required to complete the
project exceeds the contract time.
The amount is based on estimated
damages which would be sustained by
you. This clause is invoked only if
the construction contractor has failed
to complete the work by the designated
139
-------
time or fails to justify and obtain
approval of time extensions. Since
the construction contractor will
generally provide a justification, you
should keep complete time-related
records in order to enforce this
clause.
o Constructive Acceleration
You should not ignore a justifiable
request for a time extension since
this can result in a construction
contractor claim for constructive
acceleration. This occurs when a
construction contractor sustains
additional costs by increasing
forces or otherwise incurring added
expense to overcome lost time which
occurred through no fault of its own
in order to avoid assessment of
liquidated damages.
Terminations, suspensions, and
extensions of time will necessitate
processing a change order. Termina-
tions for convenience or default are
usually very complex and may require
evaluation of the entire project.
Other contract provisions in addition
to EPA-required contract provisions
or model subagreement clauses can
affect the outcome. Extensions of
time should be fully evaluated and
justified. You are cautioned against
awarding unwarranted time extensions,
so that liquidated damages may not be
unnecessarily forfeited.
Whenever time factors are part of
a change order, they should be
negotiated together with the other
factors, not deferred or separately
negotiated. In this way, claims for
associated costs such as additional
overhead during time extensions can be
largely avoided.
14.9.3
PREPARATION OF The preparation of
THE CHANGE ORDER the change order
requires familiarity
with contract documents, assembling of
pertinent information, negotiation,
and careful documentation of the
proceedings.
Before entering negotiations, you
should be totally familiar with the
options and incentives provided by
the contract documents. Application
of these tools can encourage the
construction contractor to negotiate
meaningfully.
The bilateral change order is the more
common type, it is one agreed to by
both parties, and it minimizes cause
for disputes and claims at a later
date. Should meaningful negotiations
fail, you may issue a unilateral
change based on the authority
provided by the EPA-required contract
provisions or model subagreement
clauses. For a unilateral change, the
construction contractor, whose
concurrence is not required, is
entitled to an "equitable adjustment"
for any difference in cost resulting
from that change. Many contracts
provide a formula for computing the
adjustment. The threat of the use of
the unilateral change plus other
options provided for by contract can
expedite meaningful negotiations.
Other options include deletion of
the work covered by the change and
performance of that work with your own
forces (which should be approved by
the reviewing agency before starting
work), or performance under a separate
contract awarded to another construc-
tion contractor. However, a proposal
deleting the changed work may entitle
the construction contractor to an
equitable adjustment for part, but not
140
-------
necessarily a pro rata share, of the
overhead allocable to the changed work
and not recovered elsewhere. The
unilateral change should be invoked
with caution since control over costs
and time may be lost, the quality of
the work may suffer, and control of
the contract may suffer.
Convinced of the need for a change
order, your next step is to negotiate
the conditions of that change with the
construction contractor and prepare
the change order. Effective negotia-
tion is a vital function of contracts
administration. You should, as
good business practice, prepare for
negotiations with the same thorough-
ness as the construction contractor.
There should be an exchange of
background information, clarification
of the scope of change, consultations
with regulatory agencies where
necessary, exploration of alternatives
and secondary effects and cost and
time considerations. Each party
should formulate certain negotiable
objectives of performance, price, and
time.
Preparation for Negotiations
You are responsible for negotiating
fair and reasonable cost and time for
a necessary change order. Preparation
for negotiations should include
consideration of quality control,
cost, alternative methods, secondary
effects, and time. The engineer's
advice is normally sufficient for this
preparation.
However, where you are faced with an
unusually substantial and complex
claim, you may wish to use an
independent third party to prepare an
assessment. This third party should
provide whatever engineering and
construction, financial, and legal
expertise is needed to clarify your
position regarding costs, share of
liability, and amount at risk.
By comparing the assessment to
litigation/arbitration cost estimates
and the construction contractor's
potential settlement offer, you may
find the claim close to resolution.
It should be noted that written prior
approval by the reviewing agency
must be obtained before contracting
with a third party, if you want this
assistance added to the scope of the
grant-eligible project.
o Quality Control
Quality of materials and workmanship
may be a negotiable item in some
modifications. The corresponding
price can vary over a considerable
range. Any proposal for change should
include a detailed description of
work, plus a specification clearly
defining quality of materials and
workmanship.
o Cost
Most change clauses specify that an
equitable adjustment should be agreed
upon. The goal of an equitable
adjustment is to leave the construc-
tion contractor in the same relative
profit or loss position on the basic
contract after the change order as if
there had been no need to change the
contract.
You should establish the cost of the
change, insofar as possible, before
the start of work. Pricing of
the work after its completion is
undesirable since it:
- Compromises your ability to
control project costs;
- Gives the construction contractor
a distinct advantage in negotia-
tions for extensions of time;
141
-------
- Fosters a condition where the
price agreement may be based upon
cost plus a percentage of cost
basis which is not allowed under
EPA regulations;
- Fosters a pattern of overpriced
proposals which delay agreement
until after the work is com-
pleted.
At this stage, you should have the
construction contractor's price
proposal, the Engineer's independent
cost estimate and possibly an
independent third party's assessment
if necessary for comparison. You
should be prepared to negotiate
cost plus a fair profit, including
reductions in overhead and profit for
deleted work. Under grants awarded
on or after May 12, 1982, you are
required by EPA regulations to
conduct a cost or price analysis for
all negotiated change orders estimated
to exceed $10,000.
o Alternative Methods
There are generally a number of
alternative methods of meeting the
objective of the proposed change. The
construction contractor, being the
most knowledgeable about its operating
costs, can often suggest economies
in construction methods or materials
not apparent to you. The cost
effectiveness of the alternatives
presented should be compared after a
technical analysis, taking into
account future operation and main-
tenance costs. You should also
consider whether the change is
needed to complete the project
since the "no change" alternative may
in fact be the most cost-effective
choice over the design life of the
project.
o Secondary Effects
A seemingly minor contract change
may have secondary impacts which are
many times more costly than the
original change order amount. Assess-
ment of secondary effects presupposes
a thorough understanding of the
project design, contract documents,
and the construction contractor's
schedule and construction techniques.
Failure to properly assess secondary
effects may undermine the cost
effectiveness justification supporting
the proposed changes.
o Time
Time affects price. It is unlikely
that a realistic price can be
negotiated without the parties
agreeing or being close to agreement
on the time adjustment required.
Deferral of time negotiations to a
later date suffers from the same
criticisms as after-the-fact pricing,
since it:
- Relieves the construction
contractor of pressure to
complete the work in a timely
manner. However, if time
negotiations are deferred, the
construction contractor must
still prove the basis for delays;
- Places the construction
contractor in the advantageous
position of negotiating from
actual time. This can be
countered by keeping construction
schedules up to date;
- Creates a danger of constructive
acceleration due to failure to
issue justified time extensions
promptly.
Approval of a change order for time
extension may extend the amount of
engineering and inspection needed on
the project.
142
-------
Approval of a time extension will not
relieve you from any obligations that
the state or EPA may have imposed upon
the project.
In addition to the construction
contractor's proposal for time
extension, you should make your
own independent estimate (normally
prepared by the engineer).
Memorandum of Negotiation
It is a good construction management
practice to keep a memorandum of the
negotiations pertaining to a change
order. The amount of detail and
formality involved in the memorandum
should definitely be not more than is
justified by the complexity of the
work and cost involved.
A record of these negotiations
documents that the parties have a
clear understanding of the proposed
changes and have jointly evaluated the
reasonableness of the proposal.
These should include considerations of
quality, cost, alternative methods,
secondary effects, and time. The
memorandum should be prepared at the
negotiating table and signed by all
attending. Immediate documentation
minimizes misinterpretation and memory
failure.
The parties may not reach agreement on
some or all of the items discussed.
The disagreements are often more
significant than the items resolved.
Those items which are not resolved or
are not negotiable should also be
recorded, stating the position of each
side and whatever reservation of
rights is necessary. The reasons
for disagreement must be clearly
documented. A multipart bilateral
change order can then be executed for
the resolved items and one or more
unilateral change orders issued for
those unresolved items which must
proceed. The construction contractor
may then seek a remedy through
renewed negotiation, arbitration or
litigation.
A number of unrelated items may
be discussed at the same session
and included in one memorandum.
The Memorandum of Negotiation
should should contain the following
information:
o Project name and number, location,
date;
o Contract name and number;
o Names of persons representing
construction contractor, Owner,
Engineer;
o Description of proposed change
(attach revised specification, plan,
sketches, shop drawings, etc.) station
location, plan sheet number;
o Discussion of alternative methods
of meeting objective and quality
considerations;
o Construction contractor's price
proposal;
o Engineer's independent estimate
of cost and time changes;
o Explanation for recalculation or
disagreement;
o Statement of total cost changes
including secondary costs;
o Statement of total time changes;
o Assurance that complete cost of
secondary effects has been included;
o Dated signatures of persons
attending.
143
-------
The Memorandum is not a notice to
proceed, nor is it a change order. It
should be used in the preparation of
the change order and retained in your
files for possible later use by the
reviewing agency.
Change Order
The change order is the formal
document which alters some condition
of the contract documents. The change
order may alter the contract price,
schedule of payments, completion date,
and plans and specifications.
It specifies the agreed-upon change to
the contract and should include the
fol1owi ng i nformati on:
o Identification of the change order;
o Description of change;
o Reason for change;
o Change in contract price;
o Change in unit prices (if appli-
cable);
o Change to contract time;
o Statement that secondary impacts
are included;
o Approvals by the Owner's and
construction contractor's authorized
representatives.
You may require the Engineer's
signature for internal control, but
this is not a substitute for your
signature.
Notice to Proceed
Before proceeding with the work, the
construction contractor may require a
"Change Order Notice to Proceed"
(standard forms available from
professional and trade associations)
from you. If needed, you can provide
notice to proceed immediately unless
prior approval from the reviewing
agency is required. The notice to
proceed may be made a part of the
change order, allowing the construc-
tion contractor to proceed upon
execution of the change order by both
parties.
Submitting a Change Order to
the Reviewing Agency
EPA regulations intend that the level
of detail required in a change order
and attachments depends on the dollar
amount and complexity of the change.
For changes with a price of $10,000 or
less, abbreviated documentation should
be used such as, for example, a
telephone memorandum to serve as a
Memorandum of Negotiation. As
another example, sales slips, quota-
tions, catalogs and price lists can be
used to support the price paid. By
using shortened procedures and by
grouping changes to be administered in
one change order, preparation costs
should be kept reasonable in relation
to the dollar value of the change.
However, related work should not be
separated into several change orders
just to take advantage of shortened
procedures.
Submittal requirements also depend on
the date upon which the grant was
awarded. For grants awarded on or
after May 12, 1982, change orders
would not need to be submitted to the
reviewing agency, unless you self-
certify that your own procurement
system does not meet the intent of EPA
regulations. However, these change
orders will be subject to audit by the
reviewing agency at the completion of
the project. Documentation, except
144
-------
the approval request, should therefore
be completed and kept in your files.
In order to assist you in preparation
of the change order approval request,
the information typically required
by the reviewer has been provided in
the EPA publication referenced in
Section 14.9.5. This request formally
notifies the reviewing agency that a
change has been made to the contract
documents and asks for change order
approval and determination of allow-
ability of any additional costs or
time for federal participation. Since
the memorandum of negotiation, change
order and notice to proceed (if any)
will be included with the request, it
is suggested that information given on
them not be duplicated on the request
itself.
The request must be signed by you
prior to submission to the reviewing
agency. As with the change order,
the engineer's and construction
contractor's signatures may be
required as a part of your internal
control procedures, but this is not a
substitute for your signature.
Supporting documentation should be
referenced and then attached to the
change order request.
You are expected to keep all change
order documentation on file for
3 years following final grant payment.
If a change order is the subject of a
controversy (such as a claim) or audit
within the 3 years, the period shall
be extended until resolution of the
controversy or audit.
You should also check with your
State agency which has reviewed the
construction drawings and specifica-
tions to determine if there are
any additional change reporting
requirements, such as modifications to
a State-issued building permit.
14.9.4
REVIEWING AGENCY The reviewing
PROCEDURES agency's responsi-
bility is to deter-
mine if a change order request
complies with and satisfies the EPA
requirements of the construction
grants program.
Each reviewing agency has developed
its own checklists for review of
change orders. You should discuss
those procedures with the particular
reviewer who is involved.
Grantee Notification
You must be formally notified of the
action taken on the completed change
order request. This notification
informs you that one of the following
actions has been taken:
o If prior approval is required:
- costs of change order are
allowable (or partially allowable
as stipulated);
- costs of change order are not
allowable.
o If prior approval not required:
- change order is approved and
costs are allowable (or partially
allowable as stipulated);
- change order is approved, but
costs are not allowable;
- change order is not approved and
the reason.
o In all cases, that approval of a
project change does not obligate EPA
to any increase in the amount of the
grant or grant payments unless an
amendment to increase the grant is
145
-------
I alsot approved. This limitation
should be stated in the approval and
appropriate action taken toward
amending the grant if necessary.
You should also be informed of any
restrictions on grant amendments,
such as the State agency denying
certification of a grant increase or
any regulation which limits grant
increases.
Review of Allowability Determination
You may request a review of the
allowability determination, This
applies to determinations oy the
State agency or EPA project
officer. Details of the disputes
procedure are explained in Section
14.9.1 (40 CFR Part 30, Subpart L and
40 CFR, 35.3030).
14.9.5
REFERENCE
MATERIAL
For further informa-
tion on change order
preparation, you may
wish to refer to the EPA publication
"Management of Construction Change
Orders, A Guide for Grantees - March
1983."
PART IV. FINANCIAL AND PROCUREMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
CHAPTER 15
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
15.0
ALLOWABLE AND
UNALLOWABLE
COSTS
allowable for
(Append i x A
Subpart I)
Not all costs
associated with your
wastewater treat-
ment project are
grant participation
to 40 CFR Part 35
These regulations
provides a specific list of allowable
and unallowable costs based on the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and Federal cost
principles. The list should be
consulted as you prepare a grant
application, a payment request
or during audit as appropriate.
Questions of clarification or requests
for inclusion of costs as allowable
and not otherwise determined are
to be made through your reviewing
agency.
Resolve questions of allowable costs
as early as possible to preclude
potential adverse financial impacts
upon your community from decisions
made after Federal audit.
15.1
REPLACEMENT
COSJS
Grant assistance is
authori zed for
treatment works
including new facilities or exten-
sions, improvements, remodeling,
additions and alterations to existing
facilities (40 CFR Part 35, Appendix
A). Grant assistance is not provided
to replace, through reconstruction or
substitution, treatment works that
fail prior to initiation of operation,
during their design life (generally
20 years), or fail to meet project
146
-------
performance standards and which
received assistance under the Water
Pollution Control Act of 1956 or
its amendments (except qualifying
innovative or alternative projects;
Section 6.7 and Section 15.2).
15.2*
INNOVATIVE AND
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGY
REPLACEMENT
GRANT
During facilities
planning you
evaluated innovative
and alternative I&A
technology projects
as a potent i al
cost-effective solution to your
wastewater problem. In addition
to the cost or energy savings or
conservation techniques which I&A
projects realize, an additional
incentive authorized by the CWA is
the potential for a 100 percent
modification or replacement (M/R)
grant if the project fails within
2 years following initiation of
operation.
For the purpose of 100 percent M/R
funding, "failure" is defined as the
inability of the entire system or
significant elements to meet project
performance standards, where such
failure is due to the higher risk
elements of design. M/R 100 percent
funding is not available where the
failure of an I or A system or
component is covered by a warranty
or caused by negligence.
M/R 100 percent funding is also not
available where the non-I&A portion
fails and the technology failure is
not caused by the I&A component.
When failure occurs, you are
encouraged to pursue independent
corrective actions analysis as part
of the procedures to establish a
firm basis for requesting M/R grant
assistance.
Evaluation of requests for 100 percent
M/R grants involves a determination
that: (a) project performance
standards have not been met; (b) the
failure results in a significant
increase in operations and maintenance
O&M costs and/or requires additional
significant capital expenditures to
correct the problem; and (c) the
failure is not attributable to
negligence on the part of any person.
Negligence should be evaluated as the
last item since the determination is
based upon both technical analysis and
legal findings.
Initial screening will verify that
there is good justification for a
detailed evaluation or rejection of
the request for reasons such as
expiration of the two-year period,
hydraulic or organic overloading of
the system or lack of an adequate
O&M program.
When results of the initial screening
indicate that failure of an I or A
technology is the probable cause, a
performance evaluation should be
prepared and address the following
areas:
o Description of the failure
including date of occurrence, manner
of failure, and effects of failure;
o Quality assurance (if actual
environmental data is to be collected
and evaluated, Section 4.4));
o Evaluation of the current O&M
program;
o Evaluation of system design,
including analysis of process theory
and identification of potential
design deficiencies impacting system
performance;
o Identification and evaluation of
potential construction deficiencies
contributing to the failure;
147
-------
o Evaluation of equipment
performance and warranties;
o Evaluation of process warranties
and performance guarantees; and
o Description of outstanding claims
and issues of negligence, where
appropriate.
15.3
FORCE ACCOUNT As a matter of
public policy, use
of private firms for project work is
encouraged. However, some of your
project work may be performed more
efficiently and economically using
municipal employees. This procedure
is termed "force account." You may
use this procedure for construction
work only if costs are properly
documented (40 CFR Part 30) and your
municipal employees are qualified to
perform the work. The costs for
force account work, if any, during
facilities planning and project
design are not allowable for grant
participation, but the work may be
done under the allowance to be paid as
part of a subsequent Step 3 Grant.
Where it is proposed to use force
account during Step 3, certain
restrictions and limitations are
imposed to ensure the proper use and
accounting of public funds.
15.3.1
PRIOR APPROVAL Prior written
approval by the
reviewing agency (for building) is
needed for the use of force account,
if the estimated costs are greater
than $25,000. Approval is based
on overriding reasons for force
account rather than private firms and
can be given only if one of two
criteria is met (40 CFR, 30.520):
o The work can be accomplished
more economically by the use of this
method compared with competitive
bidding procurement;
o Emergency circumstances dictate
its use.
To satisfy the criterion of improved
economy you should substantiate:
o That all anticipated project
administrative costs including
salaries of administrative employees
and travel expenses have been
included and are allowable for grant
participation;
o The proposed method
keeping and timechecking;
of time-
o The method of establishing wage
scales for laborers, mechanics,
and supervisory employees;
o The indirect cost rate and its
method of allocation to the project;
o The method for computing allow-
ances for use, repair and overhaul of
municipal equipment, rental rates and
period of use for rental equipment;
o The method of computing deprecia-
tion costs of small tools and other
expendable items or equipment;
o The method of disposing of
unused materials and tools and any
appropriate cost adjustments.
15.3.2
OTHER FORCE
ACCOUNT
CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to
substantiation of
improved economy,
additional controls
are needed, such as:
o Adequate cost accounting records
substantiating direct and indirect
costs;
148
-------
o Maintaining other1 ongoing
required municipal functions;
o Limiting minor construction work
(as a matter of program policy);
o Employee time sheets approved and
signed by a supervisor accounting for
all hours worked in a day or week by
project (whether or not the project is
Federally funded);
o Control procedures ensuring that
all materials, supplies, equipment and
labor cost charged to the project are
actually used in connection with the
project;
o Assurance that the Copeland
Anti-Kickback Act provision will be
enforced;
o Adequate insurance including fire
and extended coverage, workmen's
compensation, public liability and
property damage, and "all risk" in
accordance with local or State law.
The force account method of performing
small portions of project work
requires careful analysis and planning
beforehand and management and cost
control after work is initiated.
15.4
PAYMENTS Three needs arise
with regard to grant
payments: (1) your need for timely
payments to contractors, (2) your need
for timely payments from EPA, and
(3) EPA's need to project outlays for
financial management control. These
needs can best be met when there is
agreement initially as to amount and
timing of payment requests. At the
time of grant application you must
prepare a schedule of anticipated
grant payments indicating months from
grant award and estimated amount of
each payment. For Step 3 projects you
may request 50 percent of the Federal
share of the allowance immediately
after grant award and the balance
after award of all prime subagreements
for building the project. For
Step 2+3 projects where no facilities
planning grant was awarded you may
request 30 percent of the Federal
share of the allowance immediately
after grant award, 35 percent when the
design is 50 percent complete, and the
balance after award of all prime
subagreements for building the
project. For Step 2+3 projects
for which a facilities planning grant
was awarded, you may request 50
percent of the Federal share of the
allowance when the design is 50
percent complete and the balance after
award of all prime subagreements for
building the project.
Payment schedules may be modified
in consultation with the project
reviewer. Your requirements are
combined with those of other projects
and used to forecast Federal outlay
requirements for the fiscal year.
EPA has a goal of 22 calendar days
from receipt of your payment request
to your receipt of a check from the
Department of the Treasury. This
presumes your payment request is
consistent with the work progress, is
not held up for a specific reason
e.g», plan of operation), and is in
line with your payment schedule.
Grant payments are based on costs
incurred and are due and payable. You
should consider payment policies and
procedures that will reduce the cost
of the contract. These include
payment discounts to determine the low
bid, progress payments to architects/
engineers (A/E's) and construction
contractors, and minimum retainage
from progress payments.
149
-------
Payment discounts are governed by EPA
procurement regulations (40 CFR
33.430). However, progress payments
and retainage from progress payments
may be governed by your State law.
You may make progress payments for the
amount and value of work and services
performed. You may also make progress
payments for materials or equipment
delivered to or stocked near the
construction site. You may also
include payment for undelivered
specifically manufactured items
or equipment, provided provisions
regarding appropriate insurance,
security, and protection of Federal
interests and your interests in
progress payments are included in
your contract documents. If your
contractor is making satisfactory
progress, and there is no other
specific reason for withholding a
portion of the progress payments,
you should retain only that amount
necessary to assure completion of your
project.
Several States have laws or are
considering legislation that requires
payment of interest penalties to
contractors for late payment of
legitimate invoices. Federal law
prohibits the use of grant funds for
payment of such interest penalties
requiring that "(a) in no case shall
an obligation to pay such interest
penalties be construed to be an
obligation of the United States,"
and "(b) any payment of such interest
penalties shall not be made from funds
provided to a grantee by a Federal
agency nor shall any non-Federal funds
expended for such interest penalties
be counted toward any matching
requirement applicable to that grant."
Care in preparing payment requests and
contact with the payment official will
expedite processing of your payments.
If payments are not made promptly
by you to your contractor, interest
earned on EPA grant funds will be
recovered at audit.
15.4.1
PREAWARD COSTS In general, grant
assistance will not
be provided for building work
performed prior to grant award. An
exception to this rule is:
o In emergencies or instances where
delay could result in significant
cost increases and where the regional
administrator has given prior
approval. Examples of this condition
are: procurement of major equipment
requiring long lead times; field
testing of I or A technologies; minor
sewer rehabilitation, acquisition or
option for purchase of eligible
land; or advance building of minor
portions of the treatment works.
Where the instances described above
exist, the reviewing agency may
approve the preliminary Step 3 work
but only after completion of the
.appropriate environmental review
(Section 9.2.2). If preliminary
Step 3 work is approved by the
reviewing agency, such approval is not
an actual nor implied commitment
of future grant assistance and
you proceed at your own risk. In
addition, preaward procurements are
subject to EPA regulations (40 CFR
Part 33 for A/E services; Part 4 for
acquisition of real property).
Approval of preliminary Step 3 work as
a preaward cost is not to be confused
with the allowance (Section 13.5) for
facilities planning and project
design. Preparation of a facilities
plan and design of the project are
part of the application process and
150
-------
do not require (although it is
reco'mmended) approval before grant
application.
If you believe that preliminary Step 3
work on your project must begin before
grant award, contact your project
reviewer for additional guidance.
15.4.2
INTERIM PAYMENTS Procedures for
filing interim
payment requests (EPA Form SF-271,
Outlay Report and Request for Reim-
bursement for Construction Program)
vary from region to region or State to
State. The frequency and dollar
amounts should agree with the payment
schedule in your grant agreement and
any other special grant conditions.
One item needing clarification from
your project reviewer concerns
supporting documentation, if any,
which is to accompany a payment
request. For instance, such documen-
tation may include invoices from
your A/E or the A/E's estimate of
work-in-pi ace.
15.4.3
FINAL PAYMENT Final grant payment
for building the
project will be made after satisfac-
tion of all applicable regulations and
any special grant conditions. The
final grant payment for buildir\g
the project is the balance of the
Federal share of the allowable project
costs adjusted to actual costs
incurred. The last Federal grant
payment may be made (subject to
negotiations with your reviewing
agency) one year after initiation
of operation and will include all
allowable cos^ts associated with
project performance (Section 14.6).
The Federal share of refunds, rebates
or other amounts (including any
interest that accrue to the project
are credited to the State allotment or
paid to the United States.
By accepting the final payment you
agree to release and discharge
the United States, its officers,
agents, and employees from all
liabilities, obligations and claims
arising out of the project work or
under the grant, subject only to
exceptions previously specified in
writing between you and the reviewing
agency.
15.5
GRANT INCREASES/ Grant increases/
DECREASES decreases are most
often associated
with construction and are discussed in
Section 14.1.
15.6
AUDITS By accepting the
grant you agree that
all project related books, documents,
records and papers and those of your
contractors are accessible to the
reviewing agency or its authorized
representatives for audit purposes.
The objective of the audit is to
determine whether financial operations
are conducted properly, the financial
statements are presented fairly, you
complied with laws and regulations
affecting the expenditure of Federal
funds, internal procedures were
established to meet the objectives of
the grants program and financial
reports contain accurate and reliable
information.
You must conduct an audit at least
once every 2 years to evaluate
the integrity of your financial
transactions and reports and to
determine comliance with the terms
of your assistance agreement
151
-------
(OMB Circular A102, Attachment P).
You should conduct your audit on an
organization wide basis, and submit a
copy of your report to your cognizant
Federal agency (EPA Construction
Grants Program).
You will need financial records which
establish an audit trail substantiated
by receipts and disbursements. In
addition, the audit will ensure that
Step 3 or approved preaward procure-
ment procedures were properly
followed. For example, your records
may show that you purchased, received
and paid for a piece of equipment. If
the equipment price exceeded $10,000,
you should have received competitive
bids and purchased from the lowest
responsive, responsible . bidder. If
you did not receive bids or don't
have records of your procurement
action, the cost of the equipment may
possibly be excluded from Federal
grant participation.
15.6.1
FINANCIAL
RECORDS
Your grant
assistance financial
records should
be kept separate from your other
municipal financial records. Where
cross referencing is necessary, it
should be provided.
The accounting
include:
records typically
o Cash receipts register;
o Check disbursement ledger and
cancelled checks;
o Cost control ledger;
o Journal voucher;
o Payroll records, if applicable;
o Property record, if applicable.
The accounting system should be on a
double entry basis with a general
ledger. The financial management
system should include a series of
checks and balances and have a clear
separation of functions and approval
levels. Your accountant should be
familiar with these practices and may
obtain additional guidance from EPA's
"Accounting Guide for Construction
Grants," October 1977, prepared by
Office of Resources Management,
Financial Management Division.
15.6.2
AUDIT PROCEDURES
AND REPORTS
After final onsite
review by the
reviewing agency and
satisfactory resolution of any
deficiencies, your project is ready
for audit. Keep the project records
in a safe place and under your
control (40 CFR, 30.501).
The audit will be performed by the
reviewing agency, other Federal
agencies or an accounting firm
hired by the reviewing agency. The
auditors will contact you to arrange
an appointment for audit purposes.
Auditors will obtain preliminary
information from the reviewing
agency's, project files. During the
audit of your records the auditors
will monitor your files for further
documentation and make spot checks to
verify specific items. The audit may
last from a few days to weeks and you
should provide adequate work space and
make available those employees who may
be able to respond to questions raised
by the auditor.
At the completion of the audit, the
auditors will prepare an audit
report and review it with you.
If exception is taken to some of
the items you claimed for grant
participation, you have an opportunity
152
-------
to discuss it with the auditor and
provide additional information or
documentation. Evaluation of this
additional information could result in
revisions to the preliminary audit
report.
The draft audit report is sent to you
and the reviewing agency for action.
You and the respective staffs may
discuss with the auditors any
exceptions and try to resolve
differences. In some cases, you may
be contacted by the auditor to clarify
or provide additional documentation,
before the draft report is submitted.
During this time you may provide
further clarifying documentation or
explanations. You will be advised of
the final agency position on all
exceptions, normally within 120 days
from the date of the final audit
report. This final determination will
also inform you of your right to
request a review of the audit report.
(40 CFR Part 30, Subpart L).
CHAPTER 16
PROCUREMENT
16.0
INTRODUCTION Procurement is the
purchase of
materials, services, and construction.
Services include accounting,
engineering, architectural, legal, and
other consultant subagreements. The
objective of a procurement system is
to obtain needed goods and services at
a fair and reasonable price through
the use of free and open competition
appropriate to the type of project
work to be performed. When tax
dollars are involved, it is necessary
to impose safeguards in public
procurement to protect against
potential fraud and irregularities.
In Chapter 11 aspects of procurement
related to project design and the
preparation of construction drawings
and specifications (e.g., buy
American, bonding, single material,
etc.) are discussed. Procurement
actions related to management of
change orders are discussed in Chapter
14. This chapter, however, provides
guidance from an overall perspective
to assist you in understanding and
satisfying the Federal minimum
requirements for procurement.
This guidance is not regulation, and
you may follow other procedures
which satisfy the minimum requirements
of EPA's procurement regulations.
The EPA procurement regulations
entitled "Procurement Under Assistance
Agreements" (40 CFR Part 33) reflect
changes to and a consolidation of
earlier procurement regulations.
Final grant regulations were published
by EPA on February 17, 1984, and the
final procurement regulations were
153
-------
published on March 28, 1983, and
amended on July 1, 1983. Because of
some changes in the final regulations
you have several options available to
you depending on the date of your
grant award.
(1) If your grant is awarded after
March 28, 1983, your procure-
ment must comply with the
all of the requirements and
effective dates of the final
regulation.
(2) If your grant was awarded
before May 12, 1982, you
may follow the procurement
regulation which was in
effect at the time of grant
award; use the May 12, 1982,
interim-final regulation
provided you completed the
certification form (Section
16.1); or use the March 28,
1983, final procurement
regulation, whichever you
prefer.
(3) If your grant was awarded
between May 12, 1982, and
March 28, 1983, you must use
the May 12, 1982, interim-final
regulation, if you completed
the certification form before
March 28, 1983. If the
certification form was not
completed and submitted before
March 28, 1983, you must comply
with the final regulation.
The procurement regulation shifts
the responsibility for conducting
procurement to you, the grantee. For
example, you may certify that your
procurement system meets the intent
of the minimum Federal requirements
(or State requirements where
applicable) and, therefore, your
procurement actions will not normally
be reviewed by your reviewing
agency. Also, since grant assist-
ance will be provided only for
construction (initiate design for
Step 2+3 projects) there will be no
Federal oversight of your procurement
action for goods and services required
in preparing your facilities plan
and/or project designjas appropriate.
The full responsibility for procure-
ments prior to and after grant
award rests solely with you
(40 CFR, 35.2118). In order to
protect your interests you should
give careful consideration to the
procurement procedures you use and
particularly to cost or price analyses
(Section 16.5.6).
In the discussions which follow the
term "grant agreement" refers to the
agreement and amendments between you
and EPA. The term "subagreement"
refers to the agreement between you
and a contractor (architect/engineer
(A/E), construction contractor, etc.)
or the agreement between your
contractor and a subcontractor.
Remember as a grant recipient you are
responsible for maintaining a written
code or standard of conduct governing
the award and administration of
subagreements supported by EPA funds.
16.1
PROCUREMENT
CERTIFICATION
At the time of grant
applicati on you
must review your
Procurement System to determine
whether your system meets regulatory
requirements (40 CFR, Part 33),
and submit to your reviewing
agency your "Procurement System
Certification" (EPA Form 5700-48). If
your system meets the requirements,
you may elect to use your own procure-
ment system. If it does not meet the
154
-------
requirements of the regulations,
including the procedural requirements
(40 CFR, Part 33, Appendix A), you
must allow EPA the opportunity to
review all proposed subagreements
before you award them. Wherever
possible, you are encouraged to use
your own procurement system. You may
also wish to consider modifying your
system as appropriate to include some
of the Federal requirements which may
not presently be in your system or
non-EPA funded work (e.g., cost and
price analysis).
The principal advantage to using your
procurement system (assuming it
meets the minimum Federal or State
requirements), is that once you have
certified affirmatively you need
submit only minimal documentation to
your reviewing agency and you do not
need to submit proposed subagreements
for preaward review (Section 16.12).
This, in turn, saves both time and
paperwork for you and your reviewing
agency. A second advantage is that
your procurement system will probably
satisfy the procurement requirements
of other Federal agencies from whom
you may obtain loans or grants. Care
must be exercised, however, if you do
certify your procurement system as
meeting the Federal minimum require-
ments. Even though there are
distinct advantages to using your own
procurement system, it may still be to
your advantage to allow EPA to review
your proposed subagreements because
the possiblity exists that excessive
costs may be incurred only to be
declared ineligible, unallowable or
improperly allocated by an auditor
after completion of the project.
Adoption of a new system or
modification of your existing system
to meet Federal minimum requirements
results in a procurement system which
will serve you well for all municipal
procurements regardless of whether or
not Federal funds are involved.
16.2
PROCUREMENT
MANAGEMENT AND
REPORTING
This and the
following sections
describe good
procurement
management practices based on the EPA
regulations. It is recommended that a
public official, preferably a full-
time municipal employee, be assigned
responsibility to coordinate all
procurement actions. This person may
be titled "purchasing agent,"
"procurement officer," "procurement
manager," "service director," or other
similar title which conveys job
responsibility. The purchasing agent
(PA) should be or become very familiar
with the procurement system you will
use and act as a clearinghouse for all
matters concerning procurement.
The PA should maintain detailed
documentation of all procurement
actions. The documentation should
include:
o- Correspondence;
o Logs of telephone and personal
conversations;
o Minutes of meetings;
o Basis for contractor selection;*
o Justification for the procurement
method selected;*
o Justification for any
specification which does not
provide for maximum free and open
competition;*
o Justification for the type of
subagreement selected;*
155
-------
o Basis for award cost or price,
including a copy of the cost or
price analysis and documentation of
negotiations;*
o Basis and justification for
rejection of any or all bids;*
o Bid tabulations and contract
documents;*
o Payment files;
o Protest files.
Items marked with an * in the list
above must be submitted to your
reviewing agency for approval prior to
awarding a subagreement if you do not
have a certified procurement system
or if your certification has been
revoked.
As a general policy the PA should
document in writing anything that has
to do with procurement and maintain
the records for review at the time of
Federal audit. Although you may have
certified that your procurement system
satisfies Federal requirements,
you must provide your reviewing
agency with a tabulation of all bids
and/or proposals received and the
name, amount and starting and
completion dates of the successful
contractor(s) for all subagreements
expected to exceed $10,000 in 1 year.
If you wish to use an innovative
procurement method or if you propose a
noncompetitive award, you must
obtain your reviewing agency's prior
approval even if you have a certified
procurement system.
The PA should also duplicate or
summarize the section of your
procurement system concerning a code
or standards of conduct in public
contracting and distribute it by
memorandum to appropriate municipal
officials and employees. The intent
of the distribution is to alert
employees that a code of conduct
exists and to preclude conflicts of
interest.
16.3
METHODS OF
PROCUREMENT
The following are
four different
methods of procure-
ment which may be used depending upon
the circumstances: (1) formal
advertising, (2) competitive negotia-
tion, (3) noncompetitive negotiation,
and (4) small purchase. For all
subagreements expected to exceed
$10,000, the use of the formal
advertising is preferred. However,
there are instances when you cannot
draft an adequate or realistic
purchase description to meet the
elements of formal advertising.
In those circumstances you should
use the competitive negotiation
method. The least favored procurement
method is noncompetitive negotiation.
For purchases which do not exceed
$10,000, follow the small purchase
rules.
It should be noted that EPA's
procurement regulation prohibits
practices which unduly restrict or
eliminate competition. Examples of
practices considered to be unduly
restrictive include:
o Noncompetitive practices between
fi rms;
o Organizational conflicts of
i nterest;
o Unnecessary experience and
bonding requirements;
o State or local laws, ordinances,
regulations or procedures which give
156
-------
local or in-State bidders or proposers
preference over other bidders or
proposers in evaluating bids or
proposals; and
o Placing unreasonable requirements
on firms in order for them to qualify
to do business.
16.4
FORMAL
ADVERTISING
Formal advertising
is the preferred
method of procure-
ment and is the most common method
used to procure construction
contractors. Formal advertising
includes competitive bidding
procedures and, in general, follows
these steps:
o Solicitation for bids - a formal
public announcement that sealed bids
will be received for the specified
work;
o Bid receipt and opening - public
opening of bids;
o Bid evaluation - evaluation to
determine the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder;
o Subagreement award.
The following sections describe
each of these steps as related to
the procurement of construction
contractors. Formal advertising for
other than construction procurements,
will follow essentially the same
procedure.
16.4.1
SOLICITATION
FOR BIDS
A formal public
notice, more
commonly called an
"Invitation for Bids," is placed in
newspapers, trade journals, and
generally in the case of large
projects, in publications with nation-
wide distribution. If your estimated
project construction cost is expected
to exceed $10 thousand (10,000)
and you do not have a certified
procurement system, you must publish
the invitation for bids in trade
journals of nationwide distribution
for at least 30 days before bid
opening and submit proof of
advertising to your reviewing agency
(40 CFR,.Part 33, Appendix A).
The public notice describes your
project, indicates where bidding
documents, such as construction
drawings and specifications, may be
obtained and specifies a time, date
and location for opening of bids.
Adequate time generally a minimum of
30 days) is allowed between the date
of public notice and the date of bid
opening.
16.4.2
BID RECEIPT AND
OPENING
Bids are received in
sealed envelopes
from prospective
contractors and publicly opened at
the date and time specified in the
public notice. Bids are reviewed for
completeness and the name and amount
of each bid is read aloud. Obvious
discrepancies are noted and announced.
After all bids have been opened, you
announce the name and price of the
apparent low bid or bidders.
During bid receipt and opening it is
possible that a problem may arise
'late bidder, incomplete submission,
etc.). You may wish to have your A/E
or attorney present at bid opening
since these situations may require
their advice.
16.4.3
BID EVALUATION
You may have your
A/E or attorney
157
-------
review bids, check arithmetic
computations, check references,
insurance coverage, bid bonds,
minority and women's business
compliance, etc., but you are
responsible to assure that bids
are evaluated in accordance with
the criteria described in the bidding
documents (Section 11.2.1). You
may reject all bids only when there
are sound, documented business reasons
to do so. Subagreements are to be
awarded to the lowest responsive,
responsible bidder.
If you are using a certified
procurement system, (Section 16.1) and
assuming bids are within your estimate
and therefore do not require a grant
amendment, you may award subagreements
as soon as desired after bid opening.
Submit to your reviewing agency,
for informational use only, a bid
tabulation and the name, amount and
schedule for successful bidder(s).
As a major purchaser of goods and
services, you can be both prime
targets for, and sensitive detectors
of, antitrust violations. Types of
antitrust violations you should look
for include, but are not limited to,
such things as bid suppression,
complementary bidding, bid rotation,
market division, price fixing, and
other types of collusion. If you
detect an antitrust violation, you
can perform a triple public service:
(1) you can end a practice that is
costing your agency money and is
costing consumers and taxpayers
millions of dollars; (2) you can also
bring monies to the treasury, since
criminal penalties collected in
antitrust enforcement go into the
general treasury fund; and (3) you
can help recoup the additional prices
paid since the government may bring
antitrust damage actions and actions
under the Federal False Claims Act.
If a grant increase is necessary,
contact your reviewing agency before
contract award (Section 14.1.1).
If you do not have a certified
procurement system or if your
certification has been revoked, you
must comply with the procurement
regulation (40 CFR, Part 33). In
addition, you should also submit
the following information to your
reviewing agency:
o A tabulation of all bids
received;
o Copies of the proposal form
and bonds from the successful
bidder(s);
o A statement from your authorized
official giving the names of
bidders to whom you have awarded
subagreements and the amount of each
subagreement;
o Proof of public notice indicating
the circulation dates and the time for
receipt of bids (minimum of 30 days);
o A copy of each addendum issued
during the bidding period or acknow-
ledgement of its issue by the
successful bidder at least 5 days
before bid deadline;
o Signed copies of the certifica-
tion by the contractors regarding
compliance with Equal Employment
Opportunity requirements;
o A justification indicating why
the low bidder is not responsive
or responsible if award is to be made
to other than the low bidder;
o A revised project cost estimate
as necessary.
158
-------
If the bids differ from your A/E's
estimate, it may be necessary for you
to request adjustment to your grant
(Section 14.1). Upon approval by your
reviewing agency of your construction
procurement procedures, and after
adjustment of your grant if required,
you may award subagreements.
16.5
COMPETITIVE
NEGOTIATION
In most cases,
procurement of
services related to
the construction of treatment works
uses the competitive negotiation
method. This method, includes the
following steps:
o Public notice - advertising your
need for services and requesting
proposals;
o Evaluation of proposals - a
determination of the qualified
offerers and acceptable proposals;
o Negotiation and award.
An optional procedure is available for
the procurement of A/E services if
allowed by State or local laws. It
differs from the above steps in
evaluation criteria, negotiation, and
use of the prequalified list. The
following sections briefly describe
each of these steps.
16.5.1
PUBLIC NOTICE The objective of the
public .notice is to
announce your need for services and
request proposals from qualified
firms. Your public notice should
receive wide circulation and include a
notice in journals, newspapers or
publications of general circulation
over a reasonable area. If you do not
have a certified procurement system,
your notice must be published in
professional journals, newspapers or
publications of general circulation
for at least 30 days before the
deadline for receiving proposals.
The public notice describes the
scope of services required, the method
by which associated documents may
be obtained or examined, the evalua-
tion criteria (including the
relative importance attached to each
criterion), and the deadline and place
for submitting proposals.
16.5.2
EVALUATION OF
PROPOSALS
Proposals are to
be uniformly and
objectively eval-
uated in accordance with the criteria
stated in the public notice. The
objective of the evaluation process is
to determine qualified offerers and
acceptable proposals.
16.5.3
NEGOTIATION
AND AWARD OF
SUBAGREEMENT
Unless the RFP
states that the
award of the sub-
agreement is to be
based solely on evaluation of initial
proposals, you must conduct meaningful
negotiations with all of the best
qualified firms submitting acceptable
proposals and permit revisions to
obtain best and final offers. During
negotiations, you must not disclose
the identity nor any other information
derived from proposals of competing
firms. A subagreement is awarded to
the responsible firm whose proposal is
determined to be the most advantageous
to you, taking into consideration
price and other evaluation criteria
stated in the public notice.
16.5.4
OPTIONAL A/E
SELECTION
PROCEDURE
If the subagreement
to be awarded is for
A/E services, you
may eval uate and
159
-------
select the most qualified firm based
on technical qualifications only.
In so doing, the following procedures
may be used:
Prequalified List
Proposals may be requested from a
firm on a prequalified list or from
responses to a Request for Statements
of Qualifications. If a prequalified
list is used, you must:
o Develop the list using public
notice (Section 16.5.1) procedures;
o Update the list at least every
six months;
o Review and act on each request
for prequalification made more than
30 days before the closing date for
receipt of proposals or bid opening.
Request for Qualifications
A convenient mechanism used by many
municipalities for initially screening
firms is the use of a Request For
Qualifications (RFQ). The RFQ is
included in your public notice
(Section 16.5.1) and requests firms to
express their interest in working with
you on a specific project. The RFQ
provides firms an opportunity to
present in writing their qualifica-
tions and related experience. The
RFQ does not request prices and is
followed by a Request for Proposals to
those firms judged qualified.
After receipt of the qualification
statements either the purchasing agent
or a committee of municipal officials
reviews them and selects several
firms which are found to be the best
qualified. Often, in evaluating firms
it is helpful to contact past clients
to determine how well the firm
performed. Documentation of the RFQ
responses and the criteria used
to select the qualified firms is
essential. Notify unsuccessful firms
of your decision and request proposals
from the firms selected.
Request for Proposals
A request for proposals is either
announced in a public notice
"Section 16.5.1), sent to prospective
bidders from your prequalified list,
or sent to candidate firms selected
through the RFQ procedures described
above. Your notice should describe
your project requirements in detail
including such items as:
o Existing facilities;
o How associated documents,
including 40 CFR 33.295 and Subparts F
and G, may be obtained;
o Time requirements for RFP
submission and completion of the
project work;
o Unique problems;
p Previous studies;
o Persons to contact if the firm
has questions or wishes to visit the
project site;
o Criteria to be used in evaluating
proposals and relative importance of
each criterion;
Request that firms prepare a detailed
technical proposal of how they would
undertake your project work. The
PA should document all telephone
conversations, correspondence or
other communications with firms. If
clarifying or additional information
is provided to one firm, provide
the same information to all other
candidate firms.
160
-------
After, receipt of proposals either
the PA or a committee of municipal
officials reviews them and initially
ranks the firms in the order of
preference based on criteria in the
public notice. Criteria which could
be used in ranking include:
o Specialized experience and
technical competence;
o Past record of performance
(possibly contact previous clients);
o Ability to perform work in the
time you require;
o Familiarity with your type of
pollution problems;
o No personal or organizational
conflict of interest.
The decision as to how much weight is
given each of these and other criteria
is yours (assuming that you do not
show prejudice or bias based on
frivolous criteria) but it must be set
forth in the RFP.
You must conduct interviews with the
firms judged qualified. If so, you
should allow approximately one and
one-half hours for each interview.
You may wish to require the firms to
have the project officer they will
assign to your project present at the
interview. Most often firms will
have a 15 to 20 minute presentation
prepared. Thereafter, you will ask
questions and evaluate responses.
Ideally, you should have prepared in
advance a series of questions which
you will ask of all firms to use as a
common basis for comparison. Should
the interview result in a need for a
revised proposal, request that the
revision be submitted as soon as
possible.
Negotiation and Award of Subagreement
After evaluating proposals and
possibly conducting interviews,
determine the most qualified firm
based on your evaluation criteria.
Negotiate the scope of work and
corresponding price with that firm.
If you are unable to reach agreement,
formally terminate negotiations and
begin negotiations with the next most
technically qualified firm. Continue
this procedure with each succeeding
firm in the order of their technical
ranking until you are able to reach
agreement. Once negotiations are
terminated with a firm, you cannot go
back and renegotiate with that firm.
A subagreement is awarded to the most
qualified firm whose proposal is
determined in writing to be acceptable
based upon the evaluation criteria in
the RFP and after negotiation of a
fair and reasonable price.
16.5.5
USE OF THE
SAME A/E DURING
CONSTRUCTION
EPA procurement
regulations appli-
cable to projects
receiving grants
before December 29, 1981, provided for
the continuation of A/E services
from one grant step to another without
further advertising or competition.
EPA no longer provides Step 1 nor Step
2 grants nor must you follow the EPA
procurement regulations in procuring
A/E services for facilities planning
and design. However, EPA wishes to
continue the earlier policy of A/E
continuation provided that certain
conditions are met.
If you are satisfied with the
qualifications and performance of the
A/E firm which provided facilities
planning or design services for your
project and wish to retain that
firm during building of the project,
161
-------
you may do so without further
public notice and evaluation of
qualifications provided:
o You received a facilities
planning (Step 1) or design (Step 2)
grant and selected the A/E in
accordance with EPA's procurement
regulations which were in effect at
the time of grant award; or
o Your reviewing agency approves
noncompetitive procurement in
accordance with the current procure-
ment regulations (33.605(d)) for
reasons other than, you simply want
the same A/E firm;
o You are able to certify that the
following conditions have been met:
- Your initial RFP clearly
stated the possibility that
a subagreement could be
awarded for A/E services
during building of the
project; and
- The A/E was selected for
facilities planning or design
in accordance with the
procedures for competition
33.230) with appropriate
documentation (33.250(a)(l)(3)
and (b)) and using either the
small purchase, formal
advertising or competitive
negotiation procedures
(40 CFR Part 33);
- No conflict of interest
(33.715(a)(3)(iv)).
Even if you satisfy the conditions for
continuing with the same A/E firm, the
subagreement awarded to the firm must
comply with EPA's current procurement
regulations (Section 16.8).
16.5.6
COST AND PRICE In competitive
CONSIDERATIONS negotiation procure-
ment, cost is one
of the evaluation factors or criteria
used in the selection process. In the
optional A/E selection procedure,
technical qualifications of the firm
are the most important criterion
and price is negotiated after initial
selection. However, price is
important and you must conduct a cost
analysis. You must obtain detailed
cost data from a prospective firm
to determine the reasonableness and
necessity of the proposed cost. To
establish the reasonableness and
necessity of costs you should consider
prices charged in the surrounding
geographical areas for similar work,
the complexity of the tasks involved
in the work and the risk to the
candidate firm. Where there is no
price competition or where price is
based on cost analysis, profit must be
negotiated as a separate element.
Recognizing that the Federal cost
principles are applicable to your
grant and all subagreements under your
grant, a brief, simplified description
of the basic elements of cost is
provided below.
o Direct Costs - These are costs
specifically incurred for your project
and will generally include labor,
travel, materials and supplies, and
reproduction costs (for example,
printing of multiple copies of
construction drawings and specifica-
tions). Generally, the largest direct
cost is labor.
o Indirect Costs - These are actual
costs the firm incurs by providing the
services you need and include rent,
utilities, telephone, employee
insurance and benefits, accounting
162
-------
functions, and other costs of running
a business. Usually indirect costs
are lumped together either as over-
head, general and administrative
burden, or a combination of both.
Firms generally apply the same
indirect cost rate to all their
projects. Indirect costs vary among
firms. Most often indirect costs are
shown as a percentage of direct labor.
For example, if the direct labor is
$100, the indirect cost may be $130
for a total cost less profit of $230.
Indirect cost accounting systems vary
widely and you are likely to encounter
various methods.
One aspect of the Federal cost
principles with which you should be
aware and which is related to indirect
costs concerns unallowable costs.
Unallowable costs as used in this
context are costs which many firms
generally consider as overhead but
which may not be included in computing
the indirect cost rate on Federally
financed projects. A few of the more
clearly defined unallowable costs are:
interest on borrowed capital, bad
debts, advertisements or promotional
materials, and entertainment. These
costs may not be included in computing
indirect cost rates where Federal
funds are involved.
o Profit - This is the net proceeds
to the owners of the business after
all allowable costs have been deducted
from sales. Because this definition
of profit is based on Federal cost
principles, it may vary from a firm's
definition of profit. Profits are to
be negotiated as separate elements of
the price, and are to be reasonable
and reflect the complexity of the work
and the elements of risk associated
with it.
If you do not have a certified
procurement system, you must submit to
your reviewing agency for approval
cost and price data contained in or
similar to EPA's Form 5700-41 "Cost or
Price Summary Format for Subagreements
Under U.S. EPA Grants."
16.6
NONCOMPETITIVE
NEGOTIATION
Noncompetitive
negotiation is the
least favored method
of procurement and may only be used
when the other procurement methods are
not feasible.
Specifically, award of a subagreement
on grant-assisted projects employing
noncompetitive negotiation may
be done only under the following
circumstances:
o An item is available only from a
single source;
o Public exigency or emergency
requires immediate action;
o Authorization by your reviewing
agency;
o After solicitation from a number
of sources, competition is determined
to be inadequate.
16.7
SMALL PURCHASES Most procurement
systems recognize
that there are times when the proce-
dures used could cost more than the
savings they are intended to realize.
Therefore, provisions are made in EPA
regulations for small purchases,
i.e., purchases under $10,000. Your
existing procurement system or State
requirements may set a lower dollar
limit.
When you need to make a small
purchase, contact suppliers and obtain
a telephone price quotation or a brief
163
-------
written proposal. Try to obtain a
reasonable number of quotations
(ideally 3 or more) and make the most
advantageous selection. Document
your files to demonstrate that you
consulted more than one source for the
item but you need not advertise,
negotiate,' nor follow the other
detailed procurement procedures.
16.8
SUBAGREEMENTS Some types of
subagreements are
preferable in certain instances and
some are not allowed.
o Fixed Price - Where a scope of
work can be clearly defined (such as
in the procurement of construction
contractors using bidding documents
including construction drawings and
specifications), a fixed price or lump
sum subagreement is awarded. In
the case of other services, where the
scope of work can be clearly defined,
a fixed price subagreement may be
negotiated. This type of subagreement
has a fixed price no matter what the
final costs are unless a change in the
scope of work (change order) is
negotiated.
For services other than construction
contractors, this type of subagreement
is not used as extensively as the
cost-plus-fixed-fee type, primarily
because of the difficulty of clearly
defining the scope and limitations of
work. Where applicable, however, the
fixed price subagreement is the
easiest to administer.
o Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) - The
most commonly used type of subagree-
ment for services on grant assisted
projects (other than construction) is
the CPFF. With a CPFF subagreement
a cost ceiling and fixed fee are
established for the work. The ceiling
cost is made up of direct costs and
indirect costs. If, for example, the
cost ceiling is $200 consisting of
$100 direct costs, $100 indirect costs
plus $30 fixed fee, but the project
actually costs less (say $80 direct,
$80 indirect), you pay only $190 ($80
direct, $80 indirect, but full fixed
fee of $30). On the other hand, if
the project costs are expected to
exceed the ceiling, the contractor
must advise you in advance and you can
complete the original contract,
approve of the increased cost, if
justified, or terminate the contract.
The contractor is not required to
incur costs in excess of the ceiling
nor even complete the project unless
you negotiate and authorize a new cost
ceiling.
If the increased costs are for
additional work within the original
scope of services, the contractor does
not receive any increase in fixed fee.
If the additional work is beyond the
scope of original subagreement, the
contractor may be authorized to
do the additional work but also may
claim an additional fixed fee.
CPFF subagreements are used most often
when it is difficult to accurately and
clearly define all of the work.
o Percentage of Construction Cost -
This type of subagreement is not
allowed. Used many years ago, this
type of subagreement established the
price as a percentage of the construc-
tion costs. This is no longer
acceptable when Federal funds are
involved.
o Cost Plus Percentage of Cost -
This type of contract applies a
multiplier, including profit, to
direct costs and is not acceptable
when EPA funds are involved.
164
-------
o Other Subagreement Types - Other
types of subagreements exist, some
acceptable, some less desirable.
If you are dealing with an experienced
firm that has previously done
Federally assisted work, the firm will
be familiar with acceptable forms
of subagreements. Contact your
reviewing agency if you have addi-
tional questions concerning the
form of subagreements.
o Subagreements Awarded by a
Contractor -ATIsubagreements must
include provision for compliance with:
debarment and suspension (Section
13.2); responsibility requirements
(Section 16.4.3); profit requirements
(Section 16.5.6); small, minority,
women's and labor surplus area
business (Section 16.9); specification
requirements (Section 11.1.14); Buy
American provisions, if applicable,
(Section 11.2.4); Federal cost
principles (Section 16.5.6); pro-
hibited types of subagreements
(Section 16.8); cost and price
considerations (Section 16.5.6);
and applicable subagreement provisions
(Section 16.10).
16.9
MINORITY,
WOMEN'S, SMALL
AND LABOR
SURPLUS AREA
BUSINESSES
(40 CFR 33.005),
The Federal govern-
ment has identified
four groups for
special considera-
tion where Federal
funds are involved
o Minority business enterprises.
o Women's business enterprises.
o Small businesses.
o Labor surplus area businesses.
Each of these types of businesses
should be afforded an opportunity to
compete for the work you will under-
take and you and your contractors have
to fulfill specific responsibilities.
EPA has established a policy that
a fair share of EPA-financed work
should go to small, women, and
minority businesses. EPA has
developed a Central Resource Directory
identifying qualified small, minority,
and women's business firms. A fair
share is defined as a reasonable
commitment of subagreement funds
commensurate with the total project
funding, local demographic factors,
and the availability of minority and
women's businesses. In those cases
where there is a State or local
executive directive, ordinance,
or statute prescribing goals for
minority and women's business
enterprise participation, those goals
will constitute the fair share.
Other Federal agencies, namely, the
Small Business Administration and the
Minority Business Development Agency
of the Department of Commerce have
established lists of qualified small
or minority firms. In addition, other
trade or professional associations,
such as the American Consulting
Engineers Council or Associated
General Contractors, also have
compiled lists of small and dis-
advantaged firms. Each of these
agencies will provide assistance to
you as necessary.
You must take affirmative steps to
assure that these businesses are used
when possible. Affirmative steps
include the following:
o Including qualified small,
minority and women's businesses
on solicitation lists;
o Assuring that these businesses
are solicited whenever they are
potential sources;
165
-------
.0 Dividing total requirements, when
economically feasible, into small
tasks or quantities to permit maximum
participation of these businesses;
o Establishing delivery schedules,
where the work permits, which
will encourage these businesses to
participate;
o Using the services of the Federal
agencies cited above;
o Requiring your contractors, if
they award subcontracts, to comply
with the affirmative steps above.
16.10
SUBAGREEMENT
CLAUSES
Subagreements
awarded under a
grant-assisted.
project must comply with the provi-
sions of "Subpart F - Subagreement
Provisions" which is a part of
40 CFR Part 33. These provisions
describe the minimum content of each
subagreement. Nothing, however, in
these provisions or clauses prohibits
you from requiring more assurances,
guarantees or indemnity or other
contractual requirements in the
subagreement.
The subagreement provisions address
the following:
o Minimum provisions defining a
sound and complete agreement;
o Labor standard provisions which
are to be incorporated into construc-
tion subagreements by using EPA Form
5720-4 "Labor Standards Provisions for
Federally Assisted Construction
Contracts" (includes items such as
minimum wage, work hours and safety,
anti-kickback, nondiscrimi nation,
etc.);
o Nondiscrimination (Civil Rights
Act of 1964, handicap, age, sex);
o Patents, data and copyrights
clause;
o Violating facilities clause which
prohibits use of firms included on
EPA's List of Violating Facilities
(air or water pollution, etc.);
o Energy efficiency clause which
requires compliance with a State's
energy conservation plan.
In addition, each subagreement is to
include 14 specific clauses (select
only those applicable to a particular
subagreement), or their equivalent,
which address items such as change
orders, differing site conditions,
suspension of work, termination,
access to records, etc. In the case
of these 14 clauses (40 CFR 33.1030),
it may be easiest to reproduce them
directly from the regulations although
this is not required.
The subagreement provisions, including
all applicable clauses taken together,
are intended only to provide a minimum
level of protection to safeguard the
reviewing agency's interests and,
therefore, alone do not constitute a
complete subagreement document. You
should consider additional clauses you
feel appropriate to define a sound and
complete subagreement.
16.11
PROTESTS Protests of procure-
ment actions may be
lodged by construction contractors,
A/E firms, equipment suppliers or
anyone else with a direct financial
interest adversely affected by your
procurement action. Protests are
filed with you, and it is your
166
-------
responsibility to resolve the protest
in accordance with your procurement
system procedures, Federal or State
law or local ordinance.
When a protest is received, you may
wish to contact your municipal
attorney or your A/E as appropriate
and arrange a meeting to determine
how best to proceed. You may also
consider whether it is appropriate to
defer the protested procurement
action. Document your files
carefully and use "certified
- return receipt requested" for
correspondence concerning the protest.
Protest resolution procedures begin
with an initial determination of
whether the protest has a basis in
fact, i.e., the protestor should state
the alleged violation, cite the local,
State or Federal law violated, and
indicate how the protestor was
financially harmed. If the protest
appears valid, an investigation is
conducted to determine the facts. If
the protest is frivolous or without
a basis in fact, the protestor is
so notified. In addition, most
procurement procedures address time
limitations or other administrative
constraints which, if violated, form a
basis for protest denial.
In the simplest case you may be able
to dispense with a frivolous protest
quickly. More complex cases may
involve court action. Therefore, act
promptly and with advice from legal
counsel.
The EPA procurement regulations only
address the administrative process
that EPA will use for the rapid
resolution of appeals of your protest
resolution filed with EPA. Appeals
may only be filed with and accepted by
EPA when the protestor has exhausted
all administrative remedies with
you first. Thereafter, certain
limitations (timing, notification,
etc.) will determine whether EPA
will accept or act on an appeal. If
you are aware of an appeal being filed
with EPA, you may wish to review the
EPA regulations (Subpart G to 40 CFR
Part 33) in order to understand the
procedures EPA will follow.
One requirement of the EPA protest
regulations should be noted however.
Upon receipt by EPA of a protest
appeal, EPA will promptly notify you
and request that you defer award of
the subagreement or subitem under
protest. If you do not defer award,
you bear the risk that the cost of the
subagreement or subitem may not be
allowable for grant participation if
the protest appeal is upheld. If a
protestor does not agree to a request
from you for a reasonable extension of
the bid or bid bond period during this
time, either you or EPA can summarily
dismiss the protest or appeal.
167
-------
INDEX TO FACILITIES PLANNING PORTION OF CONSTRUCTION GRANTS 1984
Key
o "6.1"; e.g.; refers to Section 6.1 of Construction Grants 1984.
o "35.2005", e.g., refers to the Construction Grants Regulations in Title 40,
Part 35, Subpart I of the Code of Federal Regulations.
o "Appx.A(b)B", e.g., refers to Appendix A, Section B of Title 40, Part 35,
Subpart I
o "Appx. A" refers to Appendix A of Construction Grants 1984.
o "Part 25", e.g., refers to Part 25 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
o "(CWA 303(e))", e.g., refers to the Clean Water Act, section 303 (e).
o "41 FR 6190", e.g., refers to volume 41 of the Federal Register, page 6190.
o "15 WCPD 1353", e.g., refers to volume 15 of the Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Documents, page 1353.
o an underlined reference includes a definition or principal discussion.
A/E [architect/engineer]: introduction, 11.0, 11.1.14, 11.2.1, 11.3, 12.1.3,
13.4, 14.2, 14.3.1, 14.3.2, 15.4.1, 16.4.2, 16.4.3, 16.5, 16.5.4. 16.5.5,
16.5.6!, 35.2005(b)(6)l
A-95: [see intergovernmental coordination]
-------
abandonment: 6.1, 7.3.1, Appx. D!, 35.2214, Appx. A(b).H.2.e!
access, for operation, etc: 6.7.2, 11.1.20, 12.5, 13.2!, 35.2110!
accountant: introduction
additional capacity (also see capacity): 7.2
additions (see expansion): 6.0, 14.6, 15.1!, Appx.A(b)H!
ad valorem taxes: 12.2.2, 12.2.3
advanced treatment, (AT): 4.2, 5.3. 6.0, 6.7.2, 9.2.1, 13.2, Appx. A!, 35.2101!
aesthetics: 3.2.11, 3.2.12!, Appx.A(b)B!
ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation): 3.2.2
ADBF (Average Daily Base Flow): (see base flow)
agricultural land, important farmland: 3.2.4, 3.2.13!, 35.2116, Appx.A(b)H.2.k!
air quality: 3.2.9, 3.2.13,
airports: 3.2.7
AJE: (see alternate justifiable expenditure)
alignments: (see sewer collection systems)
allotments: 13.5, 14.1.1, 15.4.3!, 35.2010!
allowable costs (also see categories, eligible): (see specific key word),
introduction, 6.0, 14.1, 14.3.2, 15.0, 15.4.3!, 35.2250, Appx.A!
allowability determination: 14.9.4
allowance: introduction, 1.0, 13.1, 13.2, 13.5, 15.4 et seq.!, 35.2020(e),
35.2025, Appx.A(b)A.2!
alternate justifiable expenditure (AJE): 7.1.3. Appx. 0!, Appx.A (b)H.l.f!
alternative, feasible: 6.0, 7.0, 7.3.1!. 35.2030(e)!
alternative, no action: 3.2.1, 5.6. 7.10!, 6.506!
alternative, principal: 3.1, 3.2.11, 6.0, 7.0, 7.5, 7.10
alternative, proposed/preferred: 3.1, 6.0!, 35.2030(b)!
alternative, selected: 3.2.1, 3.2.11, 8.0!. 35.2030(a)(l) & (b)(8)!
alternative systems: (see innovative and alternative)
amend facilities plan: (see facilities plan and environmental analysis
revisions)
amendments (to CWA, 1981): 1.0, 13.5, 14.6, 16.0, Appx. L
annexation: 6.2
applicant, eligible: 2.1. 4.0!, 35.2005(b)(27), 35.2101!
-------
application: 8.5.1, 13 et seq.. 15.4, 15.4.1, 16.1!, 35.2040, 35.2042, 35.2113!
appraisals: 8.6.1!, Appx.A(b)D.2!
aquifer: (see groundwater)
archeological: (see historical)
assurances: 11.1.21, 12.3, 13.1.2, 13.4, 14.6.1, 16.10
audit: 11.1.14, 14.2, 14.3, 15.0, 15.4. 15.6 et seq.. 16.2, 14.9.3, 15.6.2
authorized representative:
average daily base flow (ADBF): 5.5.2
award of grant: 3.2.12, 7.2, 9.2.2. 12.4, 13.0, 13.2, 13.6. 15.4!, 35.2042!
AT: (see advanced treatment)
base flow: 5.5.2, 5.4!, 35.2005(b) (28)!
basin plan: (CWA (303(e))
before and after studies: 4.3, Appx. C
best management practices (BMP): 4.0
best practicable waste treatment technology (BPWTT): 6.7, 6.8!, 35.2005(b)(7)!
biddability:
bidding: 11.2, 11.2.5, 11.3, 13.0, 13.1, 15.3.1, 16.4, 16.4.1, 16.4.2, 16.4.3,
16.8 bidding practice: 11.2.1, 16.3, 16.4 et seq.
bid documents:
bid evaluation: 16.4, 16.4.3
bid guarantee: 11.2.2
bids (solicitation for): 11.1.14, 11.2.1, 11.2.3, 13.3, 13.5, 14.1, 14.9.2,
15.6, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.4.1, 16.4.2, 16.4.3
biological treatment: 6.7!. 35.2005(b)(14)!
bondi ng (performance):
bonds: 3.1, 7.1.1. 7.3.1, 8.5. 11.2.2, 12.2, 14.6.1, 14.6.4, 16.4.3
BPWTT: (see best practicable wastewater treatment technology)
brand name: 11.1.14
buffer zone: 3.2.12, 8.6.4!. Appx.A(b)B & C!
Buy American: 11.2.4
bypassing: 11.1.9, 11.1.20, 14.3.1
-------
capacity, additional/excess/reserve: 5.2, 5.5, 6.1, 7.2. 8.6.1. 13.2!, 6.506,
35.2030(b)(3)(ii), 35.2123!
capita^ financing plan: 7.4!. 35.2030(b)(8)(iii). 35.2140(b)>
categorical exclusion: 3.2. 9.2.2, 13.2!, 6.507, 35.2030(c), 35.2113!
categories, eligible: 35.2015(b)(2)
certification, state: 9.2!, 35.2042(b), 35.2050!
change order: (see facilities plan revision) 14.3.1, 14.3.2, 16.10, Appx. I
change orders (bilateral/unilateral): 14.2, 14.3, 14.3.1, 14.9, 14.9.1, 14.9.2,
14.9.3, 14.9.4, 14.9.5, 16.0
changes to project: (see facilities plan revision)
charges to customers: 8.2!, 35.2030(b)(8)!
checklist: introduction, 9.1
chemical treatment: 6.7", 35.2005(b)(14)!
chlorination: 11.1.5, 11.1.6, 12.4.7
civil rights: 8.5.2
claims: 8.6.1, 14.3.1, 14.2, 14.3.2, 14.9.1, 14.9.2, 14.9.3, 15.2, 15.4.3
Clean Water Act: introduction!, 6.8, 11.1.3, 11.2.4, 1.3.2, 15.2!,
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. as ammended!
cluster: 6.3. 7.3.1, 12.5!. 35.2005(b)(18), Appx.A(b)C!
coastal: 3.2.3, 3.2.5
coast guard: 11.1.6
collection systems: 3.2.13, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4. 6.5. 7.3.1. 13.2!,
35.2005(b)(10). 35.2032(c), 35.2034, 35.2116!
combined sewer overflows (CSO): 6.7, 6.8, 7.1.3, appx. P!, 35.2005 (b)(ll),
35.2015(b), 35.2024!
competitive negotiation: 16.3, 16.5
complete waste treatment system: 1.2, 4'.0!, 35.2005(b)(12). 35.2030(b)!
compliance: 8.5, 8.5.4, 14.6!, 35.2040!
community: 6.3
condemnation: 8.6.1
conference, preapplication:
conference, preconstruction: 14.2
conference, predesign: 10.0, 11.1.5
conference, preplanning: 2.0, 3.2
-------
conflict of interest: 16.5.3, 16.5.5
connection: 6.4!, 35.2116!
constructability: 11.3
construction acceleration:
construction contingency: 14.1
construction contractor: 7.2, 14.9, 14.9.2, 14.9.3, 16.0
construction drawings and specifications: 11.1.14, 11.1.16, 11.1.19, 11.2.1,
11.3, 13.1, 14.3.1, 14.3.2, 16.4.1
construction incentive program:
construction insurance: 11.2.2
construction management: 14.3.1, 14.9.3
construction schedule: 11.1.16t
constructive change:
contingency plans: 11.1.2
continuing A/E services: 14.2
contracts: (see procurement), 11.2.3, 14.0; 14.1.1, 14.6.1, 14.9.1, 14.9.2,
14.9.3, 16.10
contracts, types of: 11.1.22, 11.2.1, 11.2.2
conventional technology: 6.7, 6.7.1, 12.6
cope!and Anti-Kickback Act:
Corps of Engineers: 3.2.3, 11.3, 14.3.2
cost accounting system: 8.5.1
cost allocation: 8.5.1!, 35.2107!
cost effectiveness: 1.1, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 6.0, 6.7.1, 7.0
et seq.. S.t.w, 8.6.3, 14.3.1!, 35.2030(a)&(b)(3)!
cost estimates: 3.1, 6.7.3, 6.11, 7.0, 7.1. 7.3.1, 8.1, 8.2, 8.6.1!,
35.2030(b)(3)(viii) & (b)(8)!
cost curves: 7.2
cost opportunity: 7.1
costs, annual: 7.1, 12.4.3!, 35.2030(b)(3)(viii)!
costs, capital/direct/monetary/savings: 7.1, 11.1.14, 16.5.6, 16.8!,
35.2030(c)!
CWA: (see Clean Water Act)
-------
Davis Bacon Act: 11.2.1
debarment: 13.2, 16.8
deed: 6.7.2
delegation: introduction, 35.2000(c):
demographic projections: (see population)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
Department of Labor (DOL): 14.2
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations:
depreciation: 7.1
design life: 1.1, 7.1. 8.5.3, 8.6.3!, 35.2005(36). (48)&(50), 35.
2030(a)(l), (b)(3) & (6)(8)(iii), 35.2214(a), A.b.D.d(Z)!
design of selected plan: 8.1, 11.1!, 35.2030(b)(8)(i)!
differing site conditions clause: 14.9.2
direct costs: (see costs, direct)
direct impacts: (see impacts)
discharge point: 5.3, 6.0, 6.2
discount rate: 7.1!. 35.2030(b)(3)!
disinfection: 8.1, 11.1.5. 11.1.6
disposal of residuals: (see residuals, disposal)
domestic wastewater baseflow: 5.4!, 35.2005(b)(28)!
dredge and fill permits: 3.2.3
drinking water: (see groundwater)
easement: 6.7.2, 7.1.2, 8.6.1, 8.6.3
effluent discharge limitations (also see BPWTT): 4.2
EID: (see environmental information document)
EIS: (see environmental impact statement)
eligible project: (see categories, eligible)
eligible costs: (see allowable costs)
emergency operating program: 8.5.3, 135.2106!
emergency response (program): 11.1.6, 12.4.4
endangered species: 3.2.8
enforceable requirements of CWA (also see BPWTT): 35.2005(b)(15)
energy: 3.2.13, 5.5.3, 6.7, 6.7.3. 6.11, 7.0, 7.1.2, 7.3.1, 7.7, 8.3, 9.1,
16.10!, 35.2030(b)(3)(vi)!
-------
environmental analysis revision (see also facilities plan revision): 3.2.1!,
6.502(a)(2)!
environmental benefit: 3.2, 6.7.3
environmental description and analysis: 3.2.1, 7.5, 8.4
environmental impact statement (EIS): 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.13, 9.2.2, 11.1.17, 13.2!,
6.509, 35.2030(c), 35.2113!
environmental information document (EID): 3.2.1, 11.1.16, 13.2!, 6.507,
35.2030(c), 35.2113!
environmental review: 3.1. 3.2, 7.5, 9.2.2, 10.0, 13.2, 15.4.1!,
35.2030(b)(6) & (c), 35.2113, 35.2123!
environmentally sensitive land: 3.2.1. 3.2.3, 5.5.1, 6.4, 6.6!, Appx.A(b)H.2.k!
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO): 14.2
equivalent uniform annual costs: 7.1!. 35.2030(b)(3)!
erosion and sediment control: 3.2.10, 11.1.16, 14.3.2
estuaries: 3.2.10
evaluation of proposals:
existing environment: 5.1
existing facilities: 5.2, 6.0, 8.6, 8.6.1, 15.1!, Appx.A(b)D.l(e),!
expansion: 6.0, 7.4, 8.5.3. 8.6.1, 15.1!, 35.2030(b)(8)(iii)!
explosive gases: 11.1.2
facilities plan completion: 1.2, 13.0!, 6.503, 35.2030(a)(2)!
facilities plan content: 1.2, 2.3, 7.3", 35.2030(b), 35.2040!
facilities plan review and approval: 9.0 et seq.!. 35.2030(a)(2)& (c)!
facilities plan revision (also see environmental analysis revision): 9.2.2,
14.3.1!, 6.502(a)(2), 35.2204(b)(4)!
fact sheet: 3.1
facultative ponds: 7.3.1!, 35.2030(a)(l)!
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA): 2.0, 7.3, 9.0, 13.1.2, Appx. F
farmland: (see agricultural land)
feasible alternatives: (see alternatives, feasible)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
federal facilities: 6.9, 13.2!, 35.2127, Appx.A(b)F, CWA 313!
federal share: introduction, 6.7, 13.5, 15.4!, 35.2030(b)(8)(ii), 35.2152!
fee simple: 8.6.1
-------
field testing: 6.7, 10.0, 10.1!, 35.2005(b)(17). 35.2040(e), 35.2118, 35.2211,
35.2262!
Financial capability: 1.1, 3.1, 5.4, 6.0, 6.7.2, 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3. 7.3.1, 7.4,
7.8, 8.5.4, 12.7, 13.2, Appx. Kl, 35.2030(a)&(b)t(8), 35.2104, 35.2123, 35.2140(d)!
finding of no significant impact (FNSI): 3.2. 9.2.2, 13.2!, 6.506, 35.2113!
fiscal year: 7.1
fish: 3.2.7, 11.1.14
flood: 3.2.3. 3.2.12, 11.2.2!, Appx.A to Part 6!
flows: 5.2. 5.5.2. 11.1.18!. 35.2030(b)(l)& (3)!
flow reduction: 5.5.2, 5.5.3!. 9.1. 35.2030(b)(3)(i)!
FNSI (see finding of no significant impact):
force account: 9.1, 14.3, 15.3, et. seq.
formal advertising: 16.3, 16.4
forms:
fuel cost escalation factors: 7.1.2
funding: 6.8, 7.1.3, 7.3.1, 8.6.1, 8.6.4, 9.0
future growth: (see capacity)
gallons per capita per day (gpcd): 5.4
generic facilities plan: 2.0, 6.0
governor's discretion: 35.2015(b)(2)(iii)
grandfathering (see also phase/segment and capacity reserve): 13.5!, 35.2152!!
grant amendment: 14.3.1, 14.1.2, 14.9.1
grant application: (see application)
grant conditions: 3.2.1, 3.2.12, 6.6, 7.2. 15.4.3!, 35.2123(d)(6),
35.2200—2218!
grant increase/decrease: 14.1, 14.1.2, 14.1.1, et seq.. 14.3.1, 14.9.4, 15.5,
16.4.3
grantee responsibilities: !35.2214!
groundwater: 3.2.10. 3.2.13. 6.7, 6.7.2, 11.1.14!, 35.2030(b)(2)&(b) (7)!
growth, allowable: (see capacity)
guidance: 35.2000(e)
hazardous waste: 6.7.1, 11.1.7
hearings: (see public hearings)
8
-------
historical: 3.2.2. 3.2.12, 3.2.13, 14.3.1, 3.2.11
Housing and Urban Development(HUD): 7.3
I&A: (see innovative and alternative)
I/I: (see infiltration/inflow)
implementation: 1.1, ^.8^8.5!, 35.2030(a) & (b)(8)(v), 35.2104,
35.2107!
impacts, indirect/indirect: 3.2.11, 6.10. 7.2!, 6.507, 35.2123(d),
Appx.A(b)B!
indirect costs: 11.1.14, 16.5.6, 16.8
individual systems: 6.7.2, 13.2!. 35.2005(b)(18). 35.2034, 35.2110!
industrial (also see pretreatment): 5.2, 5.5, 5.5.2, 6.2, 6.7.1, 6.7.3, 6.8,
6^12.2, 13.2!, 35.2005(b)(19). 35.2030(b)(3)(ii), 35.2125, Appx.A(b)F!
infiltration/inflow (I/I): 5.4. 5.5.2, 10.0, 11.1.18, 11.1.19, 11.3, 12.2.3,
13.2!, 35.2005(b)(16).(20).(21),(28)&(29). 35.2030(b)(4), 35.2120, 35.2130,
35.2140(e), Appx A(b)G!
inflation: 7.1
innovative and alternative technology (I&A): 4.1, 6.5, 6.7, 6.7.2, 6.7.3, 12.6,
13.5, 14.6, 15.1, 15.2!, 35.2005(b)(4)&(23), 35.2032. 35.2152(b), Appx.A(b)C!
innovative and alternative cost-effectiveness preference: 6.5, 6.7, 6.7.4!,
35.2032(b)!
inspection: 8.5.3, 11.1.6, 12.5, 14.3, 14.3.1, 14.9.2, 14.9.3
inspection and maintenance program: 6.7.2, 8.5.3!, 35.2034 (b)(5)!
institutional capability: 1.1!, 35.2030(b)(8)(v), 35.2104, 35.2030(a)!
insurance flood: 3.2.3, 11.2.2, 14.3.2
interceptors: 5.5. 6.10, 13.5!. 35.2005(b)(24). 35.2123. 35.2116!
intergovernmental coordination: 2.3, 9.0, 9.1, 13.1.1!, 47
FR 30959, 48 FR 15587, Part 29!
interim facilities: 6.10, 7.1
interest during construction: 7.1
interest rate: (see discount rate)
intermittent sand filters (ISF): 6.7.2
intermunicipal agreements: 2.1, 6.2, 7.8, 8.5.1, 13.2!, 35.2030(b) (8)(v),
35.2107!
-------
joint EIS/EID process: 3.2, 3.2.13, 9.2.2
jurisdiction: 7.4, 8.5!. 35.2030(b)(8)(iii), 35.2104 (b)!
kjdeldahl total nitrogen: (organic nitrogen fraction of wastewater plus ammonia
nitrogen)
laboratory: 8.5.3, 11.1.12, 12.4.2, 13.2, 14.3.2!, 35.2106!
labor surplus area businesses: 16.8
land acquisition: 8.6 et seq.. 10.0. 13.1, 13.1.2, 15.4.1, Appx. G!,
35.2040(b)(8), 35.2118, 35.2210, 35.2260, 35.2300(d), Appx.A(b)D!
land application: 6.11, 7.3.1, 8.6.4!. 35.2005(b)(7)!
land escalation factor: 7.1.2
land treatment: 4.2, 5.3, 6.0, 6.7.2, 11.1.15
land use: 3.2.13, 5.5.1. 6.10
lead agency: 6.2
lease: 8.3, 8.6.1, 8.6.2, 8.6.3
legal capability: 1.1!, 35.2030(a), 35.2104!
letters of intent: 5.5.2!, 6.2, 35.2030(b)(3)(ii)!
life cycle costs: 6.7.3!, 35.2005(b)(23)!
list of violating facilities: 16.10
local codes: 6.0
local share (funding): 7.3, 7.9, 10.0, 12.7, 13.1.2!, 13.5, 35.2030(b)(8)(1i)!
maintenance requirements: (see operation and maintenance)
management capability: 1.1. 2.1, 6.7.2. 7.3.1!, 35.2030(a)&(b)(8)(v), 35.2030(a),
35.2034(b)(5), 35.2104!
marine bay or estuary (also see CSO): 6.8, Appx. P!, 35.2005(b)(26), 35.2024(b),
35.2040(f)!
marine discharge: 6.8, 13.2!, 35.2112, 35.2005(b)(7)!
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act: 6.7.1
marine waiver:
MBE: (see minority business enterprises)
meetings: (see public hearings/meetings)
mercury: 11.1.3
10
-------
mgd: (million gallons per day)
midcourse review: 3.1, 7.10
minority business enterprise (MBE): 2.4, 11.1.14. 11.2.7, 14.2, 16.4.3, 16.9
mitigative measures: 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.12, 6.6, 11.1 16, 11.1.77!, 6,507, 6.510,
Appx.A(b)B!
modification or replacement (M/R) grant: (see replacement): 15.2
monetary costs: (see costs, monetary)
monitor: 3.2.10, 8.5.41. Appx.A(b)B, 35.2110!
multiple purpose projects (also see AJE): 6.8, 6.11, 7.1.3
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (also see environmental): 2.3, 3.2,
3.2.2, 6.7.1, 9.2.2!, 35.2123!
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): 4.2, 5.3. 6.6, 6.7,
6.9, 8.5.4, 10.1, 11.1 et seq., 12.3, 14.3.1, 14.3.2, 6.8, 7.2, 14.4!, 35.2030(b)
need: 3.2.1. 5.0, 5.1. 5.2, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 6.8, 7.2, 7.3.1!, 35.
2030(b)(3)(i1), 35.2123, 35.2214!
NEPA: (see National Environmental Policy Act)
no action alternative: (see alternative, no action)
no cost: 8.6.1, 8.6.2
no discharge: 6.7.2
noise: 3.2.11, 3.2.13
notice, public: 3.1
noncompetitive negotiation: 11.1.14, 16.3, 16.6
noncompetitive procurement: (see sole source)
nonmonetary factors: 1.1!, 35.2030(a)!
nonresidential wastes (industrial): 8.5.4
nonrestrictive specifications: 11.1.14
NPDES: (see National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
ocean discharge: (see marine discharge)
onsite review: 14.3.1, 14.3.2, 14.4, 15.4.3, 15.6.2
onsite review (final):
onsite systems (also see individual systems): 5.2, 6.0, 6.3, 7.3.1, 12.5!,
35.2030(a)(l)!
11
-------
open space: (see recreation)
operability assessment: 7.3.1
operation and maintenance (O&M): 6.1, 6.2, 6.7, 7.0, 7.1, 7.3, 7.3.1, 8.5.3,
11.1.20, 12.2 et seq.. 12.5. 13.2, 14.3.2, 15.2!, 35.2005(b) (31), 35.2106,
35.2206!
operation & maintenance manual: 12.4.6, 12.4.7, 13.2
Operational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):
option: 8.6.1!, 35.2118!
optional A/E services:
OSHA: 11.1.6, 11.1.8, 14.2
overland flow land treatment: 7.3.1!, 35.2030(a)(1)!
overruns: 11.2.1, 14.9.2
oxidation pond/ditch: 5.3. 7.3.1!, 35.2030(a)(l)!
payments: 14.4, 15.4 et seq.
payment schedule: 13.2, 13.3, 15.4 et seq.
PE: (see residential population equivalent)
peak flows: 6.10!, 35.2005(b)(29)!
performance standards: 14.6, 15.1, 15.2
permits (also see enforceable requirements): 3.2.3, 10.0, 11.1.7
phased/segmented construction: introduction, 1.2, 4.1, 5.5, 6.8, 9.2.2, 13.2,
13.5, 14.6!, 6.503, 6.514, 35.2005(b)(49), 35.2024(b)(2) (ii), 35.2108, 35.2109,
35.2152, 35.2206(c)(l)!
piggyback EIS: (see joint EIS/EID)
pilot scale:
planning area: 2.1, 4.0. 5.0, 6.3!. 35.2034(b)(3)!
planning period: 5.5, 6.10. 7.1, 7.6!, 35.2030(b)(3), CWA 208(b)(2) (A)!
planning process: 1.1, 3.0, 5.5
plan of operation: 8.5.3, 10.0, 12.4 et seq.. 13.2, 4.4!, 35.2106!
plan of study: 2.2
plans and specifications (P&S): 6.8, 14.6.1, 14.9.2, 14.9.3
ponds (also see facultative ponds): 8.6.4
population: 4.0. 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 7.3.1!, 35.2030(b)(3)!
population density: 6.4
12
-------
POTW: (publicly owned treatment works)
preapplication conference: (see conference, preapplication)
preapplication treatment: 6.7.2!, Appx.A(b)D!
preaward: 8.6.1, 10.1, 13.1.2, 13.2, 15.4.1, 15.6, 16.1!, 35.2030(a)
(2), 35.2118!
preconstruction conference: 14.2
predesign conference: 10.0, 10.1, 11.1.5
preferred alternative: (see alternative, preferred)
preliminary design: 8.1!, 35.2030(b)(8)(l)I
preplanning conference: (see conference, preplanning)
prequalified list: 16.5, 16.5.4
present worth: 7, 7.1, Appx. E!, 35.2030(b)(3)!
pretreatment: 5.2, 5.5.2, 6.1, 6.7.1, 6.7.3, 6.9, 8.5.4. 10.0, 11.1.1, 11.1.7,
12.3, 14.3.2!, Appx.A(b)F!
primary impact: (see impact direct)
prime contractor:
principal alternative: (see alternative, principal)
principal purpose: 6.9!, 35.2125!
prior approval: 13.2, 14.9.1, 14.9.2, 14.9.3, 14.9.4, 15.4.1
prior grant: 1.0!, Preamble!
priority list: 4.1, 6.7, 13.21. 35.2015(c), 35.2103!.
priority water quality areas: 4.1!. 35.2005(b)(34). 35.2015(b)!
privately owned systems (also see individual systems): 6.5, 6.7, 6.7.2, 13.2!,
35.2032(b)(l), 35.2034!
procurement (also see contracts): 2.4, 8.5.1, 11.2, 11.1.14, 11.1.22, 11.2.1,
11.2.7, 12.4, 11.2.5, 11.3, 13.1.2, 13.2, 13.4. 14.0, 14.3.2, 14.6.1, 14.6.4,
14.9.1, 14.9.3, 15.0 Part IV, 15.3.1, 15.4.1, 15.6, 16.0-16.5.1, 16.5.5,
16.5.6-16.7, 16.11, 15.4, 16 et seq.. Appx. N!, 33.715!
procurement certification:
profit: 11.1.14, 14.9.3, 16.5.6, 16.8
project performance: 14.6, 14.6.1, 14.6.3, 14.9.1, 15.2, 15.4.3
project reviewer: introduction, 6.0, 10.1, 13.6, 15.4
proposed alternative: (see alternative, proposed)
13
-------
protest appeal: 16.11
public hearings/meeting: 3.1, 3.2, 12.2
public participation: 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.13, 5.5.3, 6.7.1, 7.3, 7.3.1, 7.10, 7.11,
9.2, 13.1, 13.3!, 6.504, 35.2040(a)(3)l
rapid infiltration land treatment: 6.7.2
rare species: (see endangered species)
RCRA: (see Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
reconstruction: 7.4!, 35.2030(b)(8)(iii)! 15.1
records management system: 8.5.1
recreation: 3.2.13, 7.1.3, 7_.£, 11.1.14!, 35.2030(b)(5)!
regionalization: 6.2
regulations: (see introduction), 15.6, Appx. M
rehabilitation: 5.4, 5.4.1, 6_.3_, 6.4, 7.3.1, 8.5.1, 8.6, 8.6.1, 11.1.9 (sewers),
13.2, 14.3.2!, 35.2116, 35.2118(a)(2), 35.2120, Appx.A(b)G!
reliability: 6.7.3, 7.6. 11.1.4, 11.1.14, 12.2
relocation/dislocation: 3.2.11, 3.2.13, 8.6.1!, Appx.A(b)C!
replacement (also see operation and maintenance): 3.2.3, 6.0, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1,
8.5.3, 12.2, 13.2, 14.6, 15.1, 15.2!. 35.2005(b)(36). 35.2116. Appx.A(b)H.2!
request for proposals: 16.5.4
request for qualifications: 16.5.4
reserve capacity: (see capacity, reserve)
residential population equivalent (PE): 5.5.2
residence, principal: 6.7.2!, 35.2005(b)(31). 35.2034(a)&(b). Appx.A(b )C!
residuals disposal: 1.2, 3.2.10, 3.2.13, 5.2, 5.5.2, 6.0, 6.7, 6.7.1, 6.7.2,
6.7.3, 6.11, 7.1, 8.0, 8.5.3, 8.5.4, 8.6.1, 8.6.4, 11.1.7, 11.1.14!,
35.2030(b)(3)(iv), 35.2140, Appx.A(b)D!
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): 6.7.1, 11.1.3, 11.1.7
responsibility: introduction!, 35.2050!
responsiveness summary: 3.1, 7.11
restoration: 8.6.3!, Appx.A(b)C & D!
reuse/recovery/recycle (see also residuals): 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.7.3, 6.1 1, 8.5.4!,
35.2030(b)(3)(iv)!
revenue: 6.7. 7.1. 7.1.3. 8.6.4!. 35.2005(b)(7)(1i)(A), 35.2030(b) (3)(v),
35.2140(f)!
14
-------
risk: 6.7.3, 10.1
royalties: 11.2.5
rural communities (also see small community): 6.5, 7.3, 7.3.1, 9.0!,
35.2020(5)!
salvage value: 7.1, Appx. E
SAWS: (see small alternative wastewater systems)
scenic rivers: 3.2.6
schedule: 1.0, 3.0. 8.1, 8.5. 8.6.1. 11.2.1, 13.1, 14.2, 14.6!, 5.2005(b)(35),
35.2030(a)(2)(ii), 35.2212!
screening of alternatives: 3.1, 6.0, 7.0, 7.3
scope of environmental review: 2.0, 3.2. 5.0!, 35.2030(c). 35.2113 (c)!
seasonal population: 5.5.2
secondary impacts: (see impact, indirect)
secondary wastewater treatment: 4.2, 5.3. 35.2005(b)(7), Part 133!
sediment: (see erosion)
segment: (see phase)
service agreement: (see intermunicipal agreement)
service lateral: 5.4.1
service area: (see jurisdiction)!, 35.2132(d)(5)!
sewer maintenance program and ordinance: 5.4.1. 8.5.1
sewer system evaluation: 5.4!, 35.2120, Appx.A(b)G!
sewer system rehabilitation: 5.4, 6.8, 8.5.1, 14.3.1
sewer use ordinance: 5.4.1. 8.5.1. 10.0, 11.1.1, 11.1.2. 12.3. 13.2. 14.2,
14.3.2!, 35.2122, 35.2130, 35.2202, 35.2208, 35.2260, 35.2262!
shellfish: 3.2.10. 11.1.4. 11.1.14!. 35.2024(b)!
SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer): 3.2.2
shoreline stabilization: 3.2.10
site availability: 8.2
SIP (State Air Implementation Plan): 3.2.9
sludge disposal: (see residuals)
small alternative wastewater systems (SAWS): 6.7.2, 13.2!, Appx.A(b) C!
small business enterprise: (see minority business enterprise)
small commercial establishments: 6.5, 6.7.2, 12.2!, 35.2005(b)(39).
35.2034(b)(2), Appx.A(b)Ci
15
-------
small community: 6.2, 6.5. 6.7.2, 7.3.1, 9.0!. 35.2005(b)(40), 35.2030(a)(l),
35.2032(a)(2), Appx.A(b)C!
small purchases: 16.3, 16.5.5, 16.7
SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area): 5.4
social impacts: 3.2.11
soils: 6.3, 11.1.16
sole source procurement: 11.1.14, 16.3, 16.5.5, 16.6
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)
sources of information: 3.2.1, 5.1
staged construction: 5.5, 6.1, 6.6, 6.10, 7.4
start-up costs: 8.5.3!, Appx. A(b)E.2!
start-up services: 12.4.6
state planning processes: 4.0 et seq.
step 1, 2, 3, and 4, (2+3): introduction, 1.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.12, 8.5 .1, 8.6.1,
10.0, 13.0, 13.1, 13.2, 13.5, 15.4, 16.5.5!. 35.2005(b)(43) -(46), 35.2109.
35.2202!
storage: 6.8, 6.10, 8.6.4
storm sewers: 6.8!, 35.2005(b)(47), Appx.A(b)H.2.!
stormwater: 3.2.10. 6.7.1!. Appx.A(b)H.2.j!
subagreements: 13.1.2, 14.6.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.4.3-16.5.3, 16.5.6, 16.5 6-16.9,
16.0, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.4.3, 16.5.2, 16.5.3. 16.5.4, 16.8, 16.10, 16.11!,
35.2350, Appx.A(b)A!
sunk costs: 7.1.1
surface water: 3.2.10, 11.1.14
suspension: 13.2, 14.9.2, 16.8, 16.10
suspension of work clause:
Termination clause:
threatened species: (see endangered) 305(b) report: 4.0, 4.3
title (to land): 6.7.2, 8.6.3
toxic pollutants: 6.7.3, 8.5.4. 12.2!, 35.2130!
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): 6.7.1, 11.1.3, 11.1.7
training: 6.7.2. 8.5.3, 12.4.1, 12.4.3, 14.3.2, 14.6!, 35.2040(c),
35.2106, 35.2152(d), 35.2218(b)(2)!
16
-------
treatment works: 1.2, 5.2, 11.1.14!, 35.2005(b)(12), (48) & (49)1
trickling filters: 5.3. 7.3.1, 11.1.3!, 35.2030(a)(l)!
two-thirds rule: 6.4. 6.5!, 35.2116!
unallowable costs: (see allowable costs)
underruns: 14.9.2
undeveloped areas: 6.6
uniform lower federal share: introduction, 13.5!, 35.2152(c)!
unilateral change order:
unsewered areas: 6.3, 6.7.2!. 35.2030(a)(l)!
upgrading: 3.2.3, 6.0, 6.1, 6.7.2, 7.0, 7.3.1, 8.5.3, 8.6, 8.6.1!,
35.2030(b)(3)(iii)!
useful life: 7.1. 8.5.3. 8.6.3, 12.2!, 35.2005(36)4(50), A.b.d.b.(Z)!
user charges (also see charges to customers): 7.0, 12.2!, 35.2005(b) (51),
35.2104!
user charge system: 3.1, 5.5.3, 6.7, 6.7.2, 7.3, 8.5. 8.5.1, 10.0, 12.2,
et seq., 12.5. 13.2, 14.2, 14.3,2!, 35.2122, 35.2123(d)(5), 35.2 140, 35.2208,
35.2202, 35.2260, 35.2262!
value engineering (VE): 10.0, 11.3, 12.1 et seq., 13.2!, 35.2005(b)(5 2),
35.2114!
ventilation: 11.1.2, 11.1.6, 11.1.11
visual impacts: (see aesthetics)
voluntary exclusions: 13.2
wasteload allocations (WLAs): 4.0, 4.2, 7.3.1
water quality management (WQM): 2.1, 4.0. 6.9, 7.9, 7.11, 9.0, 13.2 !
35.2023(a)(4), 35.2102!
water quality standards (WQS): 4.0, 4.2. 7.3.1, 11.1.1, 11.1.5, 11.3, 13.2
water supply: (see groundwater)
wet and dry well classifications:
wetlands: 3.2.3, 3.2.13, 11.1.16!, Appx. A to Part 6!
wild and scenic rivers alt:
wildlife: 3.2.7
17
-------
wild rivers: 3.2.6
Women's Business Enterprise (WBE): 2.4, 11.1.14, 11.2.7. 14.2, 16.4.3, 16.9
WQM: (see water quality management)
zero discharge: (see advanced treatment)
18
-------
APPENDIX A
ADVANCED TREATMENT
-------
Monday
May 21, 1984
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Policy for Review of Advanced
Treatment Projects; Notice
-------
21462
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 99 / Monday, May 21, 1984 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[WH-FRL 2584-1)
Policy for Review of Advanced
Treatment (AT) Projects
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of program policy and
technical procedures for Agency review
of advanced treatment projects
proposed for funding under the
construction grants program.
SUMMARY: This policy supersedes
Program Requirements Memorandum
(PRM) 79-7. dated March 9,1979, and
interim policies based on the draft
revised PRM published for comment on
June 20,1980 (45 FR 41890). Agency
policy and technical procedures are set
forth to direct Headquarters and
Regional (or delegated State) reviews of
all wastewater treatment projects
designed to meet effluent requirements
more stringent than secondary
{treatment.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
policy establishes nationally consistent
procedures for the conduct of advanced
treatment {AT) reviews by
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Headquarters, Regions and delegated
States, and improves the technical basis
for review of AT projects. Tehcnical
procedures for conducting AT reviews
are included in an Appendix to the
policy.
EPA's intent is to institutionalize the
conduct of AT reviews at the lowest
feasible level of review and at the
earliest feasible time in project
development. AT review criteria and
technical procedures should be
considered in the development and
review of water quality standards and
in the processes for translating these
standards into water quality based
effluent limitations for National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
To assist States, EPA is now
improving its guidance for reviewing
water quality standards and for deriving
permit effluent limitations based on the
standards. After this policy goes into
effect, EPA Headquarters will evaluate
State and Regional implementation of
the policy as a basis for judging the
appropriateness of future delegation of
AT reviews for projects with
incremental costs of more than $3
million. This evaluation will comprise
examining how well States and Regions
conduct the required AT reviews for
projects with incremental AT costs of $3
million or less and assessing the quality
of the projects with incremental AT
costs over $3 nulBon submitted for
Headquarters review.
The policy requires review of only the
larger more expensive land treatment
projects by providing that:
EPA Regions should identify proposed
projects featuring land treatment, or other
innovative/alternative technologies affording
wastewater reuse or recycling of pollutants.
that result from AT discharge requirements.
Where the incremental present worth cast
exceeds $3 million, the project must be
reviewed under this policy. For this special
case, the incremental present worth cost
comprises the total present worth cost of
project components beyond preliminary
treatment. Where the proposed preliminary
treatment exceeds the secondary treatment
level, the incremental present worth cost
includes the cost of proposed treatment
beyond that fin achieving secondary
treatment.
While this provision may require
review of a few more land treatment
projects than reviewed under the former
Program Requirements Memorandum
79-7 (PRM 79-7), the number of
reviewed projects is not expected to
exceed ten percent of all proposed land
treatment projects resulting from AT
effluent limitations. Thus, project
reviews will focus only on the larger and
more expensive projects. The $3 million
incremental land treatment limit was
selected because present worth costs of
most of the smaller, less expensive land
treatment projects are comparable with
costs of new secondary treatment
alternatives.
The AT policy and technical
procedures being published today
incorporate many comments from
States, EPA Regions and Headquarters'
offices, and other Federal agencies.
This policy is organized as follows:
Statement of Policy
Expiration Date Application
Background
Authority
Application
1. Definition of Advanced Treatment
2. Projects Requiring Reviews
3. Review Exemptions
4. Review Responsibilities
Implementation
1. Previously Reviewed or Exempted
Projects
2. Water Quality Standards
3. Wasteload Allocations/Facilities
Planning and Design
4. Principles for Review
5. Submittal of Projects for Headquarters
Review
6. Review of Draft AT Reports.
7. Disposition of Projects
8. EPA Report to States
9. Agency Overview Procedures
Appendix A. Technical Procedures foe
Advanced-Treatment Project Reviews
Appendix B. Relationship to Previous Policies
Statement of Policy
The Agency will review and fund
advanced treatment (AT) projects
designed for treatment more stringent
than secondary treatment in accordance
with the criteria and techinical
procedures described herein. Pursuant
to directives of the Appropriations
Conference Committee, grant funds may
be used for construction of new facilities
providing treatment greater than
secondary, as defined by the Agency,
only if the incremental cost of the
advanced treatment is $3 million or less,
or if the Administrator personally
determines that advanced treatment is
required and will definitely result in
significant water quality and public
health improvements. For AT projects
with incremental AT costs of $3 million
or less, it is the policy of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
that grants funds may be used for
construction of AT facilities only if the
EPA Regional Administrator, or
delegated State, determines that
advanced treatment is required and will
definitely result in signficant water
quality and public health improvements.
The significance of improvements
resulting from and AT project will be
assessed in terms of contributions
toward restoring designated uses or
preventing the impairment of designated
uses by the proposed project.
The funding of AT projects reviewed
under this policy shall be considered
justified when all applicable provisions
of 40 CFR Part 35 (including cost-
effectiveness) and the following review
criteria have been met:
1. Scientific data, information, and
analyses document an existing
impairment of a designated use or a use
impairment that would result without
the proposed project.
2. A reasonable relationship has been
established scientifically between the
impairment of a designated use and
pollutant loadings.
3. The additional reduction of
pollutant loadings resulting from
construction and proper operation of the
AT facility will make a substantial
contribution toward the restoration of
the designated use or will prevent
impairment of a designated use by the
proposed project.
4. All other point source discharges
that contribute pollutants resulting in
the use impairment of the affected
waterbody are regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).
5. Provisions have been made to
implement those nonpoint source
pollution controls that together with the
-------
federal Baajalar ; Vol. 49, No. fl9 / Monday. May 21. 1084 / No*roe» 21463
proposed AT project are considered
necessary for restoring a designated use
or preventing the impairment ef A
designated use, and such provisions are
included in certified and approved
water quaWrv management plan.
Expiation Dale
This policy shall be effective upon its
publication date and wJH remain in
effect until rewarded.
Background
Tfei policy.
edes Program
Requirements Memorandum {PRM) 79-7,
daied March 3.1S781. and interim
policies based on the draft RRM
published for comment on June 20, 1980
[45 PR 41890]. Agency policy and
tecbmcal procedBres are set forth *o
direct HetdqiMirtars and Regional fior
delegated State) reviews of all
wasfewater treatment projects designed
to meet effluent requirements more
strident than secondary treatment
Technical piooedures far conducting AT
reviews are presented in Appendix A.
Appendix B .describes 1i»relatkiirsbi» of
this policy to previous policies.
Tie purpose of this policy is to assure
that the uaeof federal finds pd the
construction of municipal treatment
works reQaked by State adopted and
EPA-approved waier quality standards
will result ia the jMudmuai return ia
public aealfh and water quality
improvements. EPA faading decisions
based OB thi* policy do not abrogate the
right and veapoimbiliJy of States to
adopt and oeet water quality siaodacds
under provisions of sections 303. 303.
402 .and iW of the Ad.
EPA began reviewing AT projects «
accordance with directives from the
House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. The statutory aufhotityiar
AT reviews Is found la section 101(1) of
the Qean Water Act 33HS.C. 1251(0.
which requires Hie Administrator to
implement rhe Clean Water Act by
making the "best use of available
manpower and funds.'" This authority
was upheld by the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit to People of the State of
California v. US. Environmental
Protection Agency, et at, 688 R2d 217
(D.C. Oir. 1982). In that case. Hie Court
rejected a challenge by the State of
Cafiforrda to the legality at AT reviews,
holding that such reviews were
authorized under section lOlff).
In reports accompanying
Appropriations Acts for fiscal year {FY|
1979 and subsequent fiscal years.
Congress has Distracted EPA to perform
AT reviews. Specifically, m action
approving the TY 79 .appropriation far
the construction grants program, the
House and Senate Appropriations
Conference Committee agree "that grant
funds may be used for construction ef
new facilities providing treatment
greater than secondary only if the
incremental cost of the advanced
treatment is $1 million or less, or if die
Admiawtrator personally determines
that advanced treatment is required aad
wM definitely result in significant water
quality and public health
improvemeats."
In implementing that action, EPA
issued PRM 29-7 on Matrch fl, £979.
effective on dial date. AM AT projects
proposed to fecewe either a step 2 or
Step 3 scant in FY 79 were i>equired to
undergo am AT review unless the AT
project, or portion thereof, had already
been funded by a Step 3 grant before
issuance of the Conference Committee
dkectiwe in October 1978. If the
ir»cre»ental cost for the AT portion of
the project exceeded $1 million, the
review was conducted by EPA
Headquarters and signed by the
Ataanisteatar. If the AT incremental
cost of the project was $1 nuBion or less,
a review was conducted *t the Regional
level. For FY WJ and wAseqaent fiscal
yean, &e limit for Headquarters review
was raised T
the ooal of proposed fcoatmeptpayoad
that for Achieving secondary treatment
-------
21464
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 99 / Monday, May 21, 1984 / Notices
3, Review Exemptions
a. Secondary Treatment Processes. (1)
A project designed to meet State
definitions of secondary treatment shall
not be subject to review under this
policy, if the more stringent level of
effluent quality is required by State
effluent standards not more stringent
than 20/20 mg/1 BOD./SS, and only
secondary treatment technologies are
required to achieve those levels.
(2} A project featuring only the
addition of commonly used disinfection
processes for pathogen inactivation
(such as chlorination /dechlorination,
and ozonation and ultraviolet radiation)
1o a secondary treatment facility shall
not be subject to review under this
policy.
b. Phosphorus Removal. (1) Secondary
treatment facilities with phosphorus
removal only which are required to, meet
the existing international agreement for
the Great Lakes basin or the Upper
Chesapeake Bay policy shall not be
nubject to review under this policy.
(2) For projects with incremental AT
costs of $3 million or less, the Regional
Administrator shall also have the option
of exempting from review secondary
facilities with phosphorus removal only,
where the total phosphorus effluent
limitations (as total P) are not less than
1 mg/1, EPA Headquarters will provide
an expedited review for such projects
with incremental costs over $3 million.
c. Warm Weather Nitrification. For
projects with incremental AT costs of $3
million ot less, the Regional
Administrator shall have the option of
exempting AT projects from review if
such projects provide: (1) Only for warm
weather (e.g. 20° C or greater)
nitrification designed to achieve effluent
limitations requiring not more than 90
percent removal of ammonia on streams
with designated fishery uses, and (2)
effluent flows are greater than stream
flows at critical low flows. EPA
Headquarters will provide an expedited
review for such projects with
incremental costs over $3 million.
4^Review Responsibilities
The incremental AT cost is defined as
thq difference in total capital cost
between the most cost-effective
secondary treatment facility and the
proposed treatment alternative. All AT
projects with an incremental 'capital cos.t
for AT over $3 million, unless exempted,
must be approved by the EPA
Administrator in order to receive a Step
3 (or Step 2+3) grant.
All AT projects with an incremental
capital cost for AT of $3 million or less,
unless exempted, must be approved by
tllie Regional Administrator in order to
receive a Step 3 (or Step 2+3) grant. The
Regional Administrator may delegate
responsibility for the review and
approval of such AT projects, consistent
with the requirements and procedures of
this policy, to States with 205(g)
delegation for the review of facilities
plans.
Implementation
The EPA Regions shall advise the
States of this policy and the review
criteria. The EPA Regions shall indentify
all projects that require reviews under
this policy (see Application section) and
also require a Step 3 (or Step 2+3)
construction grant award. The Regional
Administrator shall assure that such
projects receive adequate reviews under
this policy prior to the award of a Step 3
(or Step 2+3) construction grant.
1. Previously Reviewed or Exempted
Projects
No additional AT reviews will be
required under this policy of previously
reviewed projects with effluent
limitation assessments prepared and
approved under PRM 79-7 or interim
policies based on the draft revised PRM
published June 20,1980. Likewise,
projects previously exempted from AT
reviews under the aforementioned
policies will not require an AT review
under this policy unless the project
includes:
(a) Denitrification; or
(b) Year round nitrification; or
(c) A filtration process as an addition
to nitrification.
2. Water Quality Standards
The water quality standards,
established by the States and approved
by EPA,' are the basic regulatory
mechanism for determining the
designated uses to be protected and the
water quality levels necessary to protect
each body of water. The standards
include designated uses and criteria
established to protect each use. AT
project reviews do not substitute for
EPA's required review of water quality
standards because the AT reviews are
predicated on a different objective, are
project-specific, and result in an EPA
funding decision. Although the reviews
may raise questions about the impact of
a State standard on discharges in a
segment, a separate State-initiated
action is necessary to review and revise
the standards. In determining whether a
proposed AT project meets the criterion
of making a substantial contribution
toward restoration of a designated use
or prevention of a use impairment that
would occur without the project, the AT
project review will take into account the
State designated use and the chemical,
physical and biological characteristics
of the receiving water body in relation
to the designated uses.
The principal foci of the AT analyses
will be: (1) The methods used to
determine the relationship between the
pollutant loadings and the established
water quality criteria (i.e., wasteload
allocations), (2) the adequacy of the
data on which judgments were made, (3)
other aspects of applying the
established water quality standards (i.e.
permit averaging periods, mixing zone
determinations and seasonal loadings),
and (4) the need for proposed AT
processes to achieve effluent limitations.
3. Wasteload Allocations/Facilities
Planning and Design
The process- of establishing or revising
effluent limitations for a proposed AT
facility includes the performance of
wasteload allocations (WLAs) and the
establishment of total maximum daily
loads (TMDLs) under section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act. Regions and
States are strongly encouraged to
review the WLAs/TMDLs and proposed
effluent limitations affecting AT projects
as soon as adequate data are available.
For projects still in planning that
appear likely to require a Headquarters
AT review, the Regions 'may submit
WLAs and AT effluent limitations to
Headquarters for a preliminary review*.
The results of such review should be
taken into consideration in the
completion of the facilities plan. This
process will expedite further AT review
when the proposed project is submitted
to Headquarters.
The construction grants regulation (40
CFR 35.2101) requires the completion of
AT reviews before the award of Step 3
(or Step 2+3) grant assistance.
However, Regions, States, and grantees
are encouraged to submit
documentation for AT projects
immediately following completion of
'facilities planning and prior to the
initiation of work on detailed plans and
specifications. Such reviews will be
conducted in accordance with this
policy.
Generally, AT project reviews will not
re-examine the facilities planning or
cost-effectiveness analysis that lead to
the selection of the proposed AT
alternative. AT project reviews may,
however, comment upon and make
recommendations as to the suitability of
AT processes in meeting effluent
limitations found to be justified.
* Principles for Review
The same review criteria will be used
in reviewing all AT projects, regardless
of incremental costs, although the
-------
Federal Reaster J VoL 49. No. 99 / Monday, May 21. 1984 /Notices
21465
appropriate level of effort required to
satisfy the review criteria will depend
on the nature of the AT project and, in
particular, the magnitude of the AT
costs involved. Technical procedures
are being issued concurrently with this
policy (vee Appendix A}. These
procedures, as applicable, will be
followed IDT AT reviews conducted by
EPA Headquarters under this policy and
should be used for reviews of projects xsf
$3 million or less to ensure consistency
of reviews. Supplemental technical
guidance will be issued from time to
time by the Office of Water. Jn the
review -of projects involving the critical
habitat of an endangered or threatened
species, the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act will be met in
consBitation with the Fish and WSMMfe
Service or the National Marine Fisheries
Service, as appropriate.
5. Subnuttai of Projects for
Headquarters Review
For AT projects with incremental AT
costs greater than $3 million, the
Regional Office shall submit
documentation for Headquarters review,
including two copies of the following:
*a) A facilities plan (draft or Baal) that
provides documentation on die
alternative* considered, and the
Region's (or State's) review comments
onibefacflitieflplari;
(bj An AT Project Checklist
completed by the Regkm;
(eJThe Region's (or State's)
evaluation of the restoration or
prevention of impairment of designated
uses, and me water quality and public
hearth improvements that will result
from AT, based upon data submitted
concerning the project; and
(dj The major documents summarizing
the water quality standards and the
establishment of effluent limitations for
the project, including an evaluation of
seasonally applied standards and
limitations.
This information should be submitted
to: Director, Facility Requirements
Division fWH-595), US. EPA, 401M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
A draft report, will be produced for
comment within 6 weeks after EPA
Headquarters receives acceptable AT
project documentation Aumiiied for a
funding decision by the Administrator,
6. Review of Draft AT Reports
As part of EPA'S AT project review, a
draft xepaet will be prepared for each
project and submitted to ibe Regional
Office (when Headquarters prepares the
report}, the State aad grantee tor review
and comment.
7. Disposition offlrojects Following A T
Review
a. Justified AT Processes. If, as a
result of EPA's AT review, EPA
determines that AT processes are
justified in accordance with this policy,
these processes can "be funded subject to
all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part
35.
b. Unjustified AT Processes. K, as a
result of EPA's AT project review, EPA
determines that certain AT processes
are not justified, then grant awards for
the construction of the unjustified AT
processes will be deferred.
Construction grant awards can be
made for the construction of secondary
treatment ami any justified AT
components, provided that the grantee
acknowledges that the Federal
government is under no obligation to
award gnats for the construction of the
unjustified AT components in the future.
Based on State policy or regulation,
the State may require the grantee to
construct the deferred AT components.
(For example, States may require this
action because of a desire for a greater
margin of safety in areas of rapid
growth, or where treated water is
needed for uses such as aquifer recharge
or reclamation.) In such cases, however,
EPA will approve grant funding only for
secondary treatment and justified AT
components, and will not fund the
additional deferred AT components.
Where the funding for certain AT
components is deferred due to
uncertainty over water quality data,
modeling or pollutant loadings and the
State wishes to resubmit these
processes for funding, a water quality
and biolqgical monitoring program
should be implemented to establish
scientifically the relationship between
the control of pollutants and the
attainment of designated uses, and
determine whether the AT components
will result in significant water quality
and public health improvements.
c. Relationship to NPDES Permits.
Deferral of funding for AT facilities
under the provisions of this policy does
not relieve the NPDES permit holder
from the enforceable provisions of the
Clean Water Act, as amended. In cases
where AT processes have been deferred,
the Agency will provide its technical
findings for consideration by theJMPQES
permitting authority in reviewing and
revising the effluent limitations, as
deemed appropriate.
8. EPA Report to States ftoHovrhg AT
Renew
Following completion of the AT
project review, the Agency will provide
to the State a report that inciades lite
following:
(a) A summary statement of the
information and analyses wed ki the AT
project review which describe* how tbe
proposed project relates to the
justification criteria for AT processes;
funding decisions reached;
(c) Recommendations, if any,
concerning water quality standards
revisions, data and information needs,
water quality and biological survey
needs, special surveys or studies, or
suggested provisions for NPDES permits;
and
(d) A listing of sources of date,
surveys, studies, plans and other
scientific information, or other public
comment thai was taken into ymf*1* by
the Agency as part of the AT project
review.
9. Agency 'Overview Procedures
As part of the Agency'*
responsibilities for providing program
overview, EPAfieadoaartei* will
evaluate: (a) The Region's screening
process for previously exeaspted
projects (see subsection 1 of this
section), and (b) the adequacy of
individual Regional/State AT project
reviews. For each AT project reviewed
by the Region or State, the Regional
Administrator shall prepare a brief
summary of the proposed treatment
processes, the funding decision resulting
from the review, and the basis for that
decision. For AT reviews conducted fcy
the Regions, this report can serve as the
summary documentation discussed in
subsection 8 of this section. Summary
documentation of AT reviews will be
used as a basis for conducting
evaluations under the Office of Water
Operating Guidance and Accountability
System.
Dated: AprM 86.1864.
)ackE.kavan,
Assistant Atbnmistrator for Water.
Appendix A— Technical Procedure far
Advanced Treatment (AT) Project
Reviews
These technical procedures, a*
applicable, will be followed for AT
reviews conducted by EPA
Headquarters under this pohcy and
should be used for projects of $3 milfioH
or less to ensure consistency of reviews.
As technical guidance M issued oy OK
Office of Water under its "Standards to
Permits" priority project pragma*, these
procedures will be
necessary.
-------
21466
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 99 / Monday, May 21. 1984 / Notices
1. Incremental AT Cost
The incremental AT cost is defined as
the difference in total capital cost
between the most cost-effective
secondary treatment facility and the
proposed treatment alternative. To
develop secondary treatment cost,
current cost curves adjusted for the local
area or equivalent current cost
experience should be used. Where-the
proposed project involves
regionalize tion or relocation of a
discharge point, all pump stations and
conveyence systems should be included
in the total capital cost
2. Assessment of Significant
Improvement
Congressional directives require that
grant funds be used for the construction
of new facilities providing treatment
greater than secondary only if the
advance treatment is required and will
definitely result in significant water
quality and public health improvements.
The AT review criteria of this policy
require an assessment of the
significance of water quality
improvements resulting from the effluent
limitations in terms of contributions
towards attaining or restoring
designated uses.
In applying the AT review criteria and
ensuring that the proposed project meets
the criteria, project reviews should take
into account the following:
(a) In some cases, showing only
improvements in chemical water quality
parameters may not sufficiently
demonstrate a substantial contribution
towards the restoration of a use, due to
other factors such as man-made
physical or hydrofogic modifications of
a stream or intermittent flows that
restrict or prevent use attainment.
(b) A justification for funding an AT
project can be based on the need to
prevent a projected use impairment if
scientific data, information, and
analyses (including an assessment of the
timing and probability of the future
pollutant loadings) show that a
municipal discharge (without providing
for AT) is likely to result in the
impairment of a designated use.
However, where impaired uses are
projected based on uncertain pollutant
loadings, funding of that future AT need
should be deferred, and provisions made
for monitoring the water quality and
biological impacts (see subsection 7(b]
of Implementation section).
3. Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
Toxicity
Due to the significant uncertainties
concerning the chronic effects of
ammonia toxicity concentrations
normally encountered in receiving
water, AT facilities that are proposed
for sole purpose of preventing ammonia
toxicity should be approved only if the
following has been demonstrated:
(a) Site specific biological data show
that designated uses cannot be restored
(or impairment prevented) without
reducing ammonia toxicity; or,
(b) Bioassay data (e.g., either
laboratory or from a similar site) for
resident species show that existing or
future ammonia toxicity levels will
impair beneficial use attainment.
Exposure levels and duration for thefce
tests should be similar to those
occurring or anticipated to occur in the
receiving water.
After publication of new ammonia
toxicity criteria by EPA, AT processes
proposed solely to prevent ammonia
toxicity may be approved consistent
with those criteria and the criteria
implementation document provided that
there is a showing that species used to
derive the criteria are present or could
be present with the reduction of
ammonia.
4. Modeling Analysis
An appropriate modeling analysis
should be used to assess the
relationship between alternative levels
of treatment and resultant water quality.
These analyses can range from simple to
complex. Complex modeling should be
calibrated and verified. (Sensitivity
analyses applied to the variables of the
model can help establish whether
collection of new data is essential.)
Simplified procedures may be
appropriate in some situations.
However, projects that involve
discharge into complex stream segments
(e.g., with multiple dischargers or
dynamic flow characteristics) need more
complex analyses. Projects with
discharge into lakes, estuaries, or
oceans should have special analyses
that usually include complex modeling.
Normally these projects involve long-
term effects rather than critical event
analyses often used for the analysis of
rivers.
The project assessment should weigh
the uncertainties inherent in the water
quality analyses with the marginal costs
of the processes being proposed. For
example, simplified water quality
analyses, with more uncertainties than
detailed modeling studies (See
Simplified Analytical Method-
September 26,1980 and addendum dated
July 25,1982), may suffice for projects
with inexpensive processes that would
achieve significant pollution reduction.
However, because of the uncertainties
and assumptions generally inherent in a
simplified analysis, this approach may
be inadequate for AT processes with
high marginal costs with limited
pollutant reduction. In such cases, more
sophisticated modeling may be required.
5. NPDES Permit Effluent Limitations
The NPDES permit effluent limitations
for the proposed AT facility and the
facility process design related thereto
serve as the the baseline for the AT
project evaluation. The evaluation
should assess the effluent quality
attainable from the proposed AT
facilities during both critical low flow
periods with minimum infiltration/
inflow (usually hot, dry months) and
during higher flow periods as well. The
evaluation should also include
determination of the effluent quality
attainable during such flow condition
for the secondary treatment processes
and that attainable from each proposed
AT process as an added-increment. The
costs of each AT increment should also
be provided.
The AT project evaluation should
analyze use of seasonal effluent
limitations for achieving the water
quality standards. The effects of
seasonal effluent limitations on
selection, design, operation and costs of
AT processes, particularly those for
ammonia and CBOD removal, should be
assessed.
The permit averaging period (e.g., the
7-day or 30-day average) is critical to
improving water quality with the least
AT cost. Because the flow variability of
each receiving water is different and the
variability of effluent quality for each
AT process is unique, a single averaging
period may not apply to all situations.
For these reasons, the derivation of the
7-day and 30-day limitations should be
based on a careful evaluation of the
effluent quality variability that can be
tolerated in the receiving waters.
The Agency is conducting technical
analyses to study the-effects of effluent
concentration and streamfh •
variability, different dilution ratios, and
the use of alternative averaging period
schemes on receiving water quality.
Preliminary results indicate that effluent
and streamflow variability and
upstream dilution are critical factors
affecting the frequency of severe water
quality violations.
Based on currently available data for
treatment plant performance, full
nitrification is a relatively stable
treatment process producing stable
effluent quality during the summer
months. When considered together with
streamflow variability and dilution, a
nitrified effluent should not cause wide
water quality fluctuations during periods
of low, stable stream flow.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 99 / Monday, May 21, 1984 / Notices
21467
Preliminary analysis indicate that
small fluctuations in the effluent quality
of full nitrification facilities designed to
achieve 30-day average permit
limitations are not likely to have any
significant impact on designated uses,
especially where the variability of the
stream flow is low. Thus, model output
should be set as a 30-day average unless
site-specific analyses indicate
otherwise.
The filtration process usually reduces
fluctuations in the quality of treatment
plant effluent. Thus, a 30-day average
for CBODs and NHj should be used for
such a process unless site-specific
analyses indicate otherwise.
Since the receiving water response to
fluctuations in inorganic nutrient
loadings (phosphorus and inorganic
nitrogen) is often slow, short-term
fluctuations should not significantly
impact receiving water quality. At least
a 30-day averaging period, preferably
based on site-specific analysis, should
be used for nutrient models. In addition,
since a chronic tenacity criterion is a "no
effect" level for 95 percent of exposed
aquatic organisms, the return period of
such 30 day exposures must be
considered on a site specific basis,
taking into account the extent of the
effects of the discharge on the aquatic
life in the receiving waters.
t«JPDES regulations require municipal
permit limitations to be expressed as
both 7-day and 30-day average
limitations. Once the appropriate permit
averaging period for the model output
has been determined, effluent
limitations should be calculated for the
other averaging periods. For example, if
the model output is used as a 30-day
limitation, the 7-day limitations must
also be calculated. If necessary, the AT
Task Force may make conclusions
based on 7-day and 30-day averaging
periods to the extent that sufficient
water quality analysis and data have
been submitted or are otherwise
'available to evaluate these averaging
periods.
B. Use of CBODs Measurement for
Water Quality Modeling to Assess
Effects of Existing Treatment Facilities
Dissolved oxygen water quality
analyses generally account for
carbonaceous oxygen demand and
nitrogenous oxygen demand from
oxidation of ammonia separately.
However, the standard uninhibited
BOD* test measures effects of both
carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen
demand if nitrifiers are present in the
test sample. Thus, when water quality
impacts of existing municipal discharges
are modeled, the nitrogenous oxygen
demand may be double counted if
'standard BOD* test procedures are used
as the model input to represent effluent
quality.
To avoid potential double counting of
nitrogenous oxygen demand, the
ultimate carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBODM) should be
used, as appropriate, as CBOD input to
the water, quality analyses. Necessary
adjustment to the CBOD,. to CBODs"
ratio should be made for the level of
treatment considered, so that actual
CBOD,, loading reflects the future
conditions. Treatment capabilities,
expressed in terms of CBOD, should
represent plant performance expected
during the period being modeled
(generally warm weather, low flow
conditions). AT reviews will be based
on CBODs. Since BODs has been used in
the past to set permit requirements,
conversion of CBODs results to BODs
effluent limitations is as site-specific
determination to be made by the State.
7. Design Conditions for Stream's
Critical Events
The critical low flow used in the
modeling should reflect the nature of the
water quality criteria used in the
analysis (i.e., chronic or acute).
Typically, most analyses evlauate
chronic exposure criteria. Since model
outputs are usually based on meeting a
chronic criterion value (30-day duration
of exposure) at an appropriate low flow,
model outputs should not be set in
permits as 1-day averages, unless there
is a statistical analysis clearly
demonstrating that the stringent effluent'
averaging period requirements are
needed to attain designated uses. It may
be appropriate to set the model output
as a 1-day average if an acute criterion
is used as the target concentration for
the model.
8. Nonpoint Sources
Pollution from nonpoint sources may
degrade water quality regardless of
point source contributions. For example,
upstream background conditions could
prevent attainment of standards or a
significant water quality improvement
even with AT. In such situations,
nonpoint sources should be part of the
analysis used to assess the relationship
between alternative levels of treatment
and resultant water quality. Although
nonpoint sources usually do not directly
affect stream water quality at ciritical
low flow conditions, the water quality
effects from'nonpoint source residuals,
e.g., in-place pollutants, may be
significant at low flow. Irrigation return
flows may also be a significant nonpoint
source in some cases. Other nonpoint
pollution may include discharge of poor
quality water from an upstream lake or
reservoir, or marsh drainage.
In those situations where nonpoint
sources are suspected of causing or
contributing to non-attainment of
standards, an assessment should be
made of the relative contribution of
point and nonpoint sources. Where Best
Management Practices for nonpoint
source control have been identified by
the State under its water quality
management process as required to
achieve standards not now-being
attained, these controls should be in
place or be included hi a certified and
approved water quality management
plan.
'9. Nitrification
After treatment beyond secondary has
been demonstrated as necessary to
enhance dissolved oxygen levels,
nitrification facilities are usually cost-
effective where nitrification occurs in
the receiving water.
Nitrification has the coincidental
benefit for reducing the risk of ammonia
toxicity. This additional benefit should
be considered in the overall water
quality assessment of the project. If
ammonia toxicity is the sole reason for
proposed nitrification facilities, ihe
ammonia limitations should be
supported by site specific criteria and
field survey data developed in
accordance with procedures outlined in
section 3, above.
10. Filtration
A tertiary filtration process by itself
or following nitrification is generally
less cost-effective than a nitrification
process in removing oxygen demanding
materials. In addition, since nitrificaiton
prior to filtration removes most of the
remaining ultimate carbonaceous
oxygen demand, water quality analyses
are often not sufficiently sensitive to
determine the small incremental water
quality improvement (e.g., 3 to 5 mg/
CBODs reduction) afforded by the added
filtration process.
Proposed filtration following
nitrification may be justified in
situations where additonal plant
reliability is necessary to protect
beneficial uses, or for facilities having
harmful chemicals discharging to a
drinking water source. Filtration
following nitrification may also be
needed to afford reliability when it is
demonstrated that upsets would occur
with sufficient frequency and severity to
impair beneficial uses, particularly a
drinking water use near the effluent
discharge point.
For each of the above cases, the
filtration process should be
-------
21468
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 99 / Monday, May 21. 1984 / Notices
demonstrated to be die most cost-
effective control alternative available to
achieve the designated beneficial use.
11. Phosphorus removal
Phosphorus removal to a level no
more stringent than 1.0 nag/1 total
phosphorus can be justified by a study
that includes: (a) A finding that total
phosphorus is or will be the nutrient that
limits plant growth; (b) a nutrient budget
for the receiving water showing
contributions of the nonpoint and point
sources of total phosphorus; and (c) a
demonstration that control of point
sources alone will result hi significant
reduction of phosphorus loading; or, if
conjunctive point and nonpoint controls
are needed to provide a significant
reduction of total phosphorus loading, a
demonstration that such provisions are
included in a certified and approved
water quality management plan.
Comprehensive water quality
analyses should be conducted in those
cases involving basinwide phosphorus
limitations or very stringent limitations
(e.g., less than 1 mg/1).
12. Suspended Solids Removal
Treatment processes proposed solely
to achieve SS effluent limitations more
stringent than secondary treatment
levels should not be approved, unless it
is demonstrated that (1) the additional
SS removal is required to achieve the
proposed effluent limitation for other
constituents e.g., CBOD, conform or
toxics, or (2) discharge of secondary
treatment SS levels would result in a
substantial contribution to impairment
of a use.
13, Disinfection
Where chlorination is proposed along
with AT processes, the benefits and
adverse impacts of chlorine on
designated uses should be evaluated as
part of the AT review. Chlorination of
wastewater produces chlorine
compounds that can be extremely toxic
to aquatic wildlife. Where the receiving
water does not provide sufficient
dilution, such compounds could prevent
the attainment of die water quality
improvements that are otherwise
expected to result from the proposed AT
facilities. If chlorination is the method
proposed for disinfection and the
receiving water is designated for aquatic
wildlife protection, the project should
include dechlorination facilities unless
an analysis is presented to show that
the concentration of chlorine
compounds in the receiving water will
not exceed criteria established to
protect this use. The recommended
criterion for chronic exposure (30 days)
for the protection of freshwater aquatic
life in streams is that recommended hi
EPA's "Water Quality Criteria for
Chlorine" (see Federal Register, 49 PR
4551, February 7,1984 for draft
recommendations; the final "Water
Quality Criteria for Chlorine" document
will be available by November 1984).
Chronic effects from total residual
chlorine (TRC) hi chlorinated effluents
are extremely variable depending on the
rate of decay of TRC and, therefore,
should be eveluated on a case by-case
basis.
14. Biological Monitoring
Biological monitoring is valuable for
assessing overall water Quality, and
may be essential for some projects
where there is currently an impairment
of the designated use. An EPA Technical
Support Manual on Water Body Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses discusses
biological monitoring and provides a
bibliography of references on biological
monitoring.
Appendix B—Relationship to Previous
Policies
1. Previous Policies
PRM 79-7 contained a general policy
for review of AT projects. It categorized
AT projects hi one of two ways:
Advanced secondary treatment (AST) or
advanced wastewater treatment (AWT).
In addition to the general review policy
and definitions of AT, PRM 79-7 also
outlined the procedure and criteria for
review of these projects. Briefly, projects
were to be reviewed on the basis of the
water quality justification including a
demonstration that the wasteload
allocation or other water quality
analyses justifying the effluent
limitations were scientifically supported
by intensive surveys or other field
investigations; land treatment had been
adequately evaluated hi all cases; the
treatment processes were the most cost-
effective means of meeting the
prescribed effluent limitations; and
finally, die project costs would not
result hi an undue financial burden to
domestic users.
On December 28,1979. the State of
Illinois filed suit in U.S. District Court hi
the District of Columbia to contest a
decision by the Administrator on the
Galesburg, Illinois, AT project. As a
result of the Agency's review of that
project, the tertiary filtration facilities of
the Galesburg project were deferred
pending water quality justification.
EPA and the State of Illinois entered
into negotiations on the Illinois suit and
eventually signed a settlement
agreement which was embodied in a
court order on May 22.1980. The
settlement agreement, although retaining
many key provisions of PRM79-7,
required Federal Register publication of
a draft revision of the PRM to reflect the
process and new criteria for review
agreed upon by the two parties. In
anticipation of the Federal Register
publication, on May 30,1980, EPA issued
a memorandum, which provided EPA
regional offices with the option of using
the draft Federal Register policy as an
interim policy, subject to Headquarters
approval. On June 20,1980, EPA
published a revised draft of a
replacement policy for PRM 79-7 hi the
Federal Register [45 FR 41890], hi
accordance with the settlement
agreement. PRM 79-7, the settlement
agreement and interim policies based on
the revised June 20,1980, draft have all
been used hi reviewing AT projects
during the past three years.
2. Revisions to Draft Policy
The June 20,1980, draft AT policy has
been revised to include a number of
changes hi organization and emphasis.
These revisions reflect the Agency's
experience hi conducting AT project
reviews and respond tec
(1) Recent program initiatives and
regulatory reform efforts,
(2) Comments received on the draft
policy and subsequent revisions, and
(3] Congressional directives contained
hi actions on the fiscal year 1981
appropriation for the construction grants
program and the "Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Construction
Grant Amendments of 1981."
a. Significant Water Quality
Improvements and Restoration of
Designated Uses. The AT review policy
emphasizes the need for a rigorous
justification of the water quality and
public health improvements resulting
from AT projects. This change reflects
both the likelihood that the availability
of construction grant funds will be
limited and the need to use limited funds
on the attainment of significant water
quality or public health improvements.
The significance of improvements
resulting from an AT project will be
assessed hi terms of contributions made
to restoring designated uses or
preventing their impairment. For each
project, funding decisions will be based
upon the best available scientific
information and the best professional
judgment of the responsible official of
the extent to which the project meets the
review criteria.
b. Elimination of the Affordability
Guidelines from AT Review Policy. The
Agency has reassessed the issue of
affordability guidelines and their
relationship to the AT review process.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 99 / Monday. May 21. 1984 / Notices
21469
Issues of project affordability, which
can more appropriately be stated as
grantee financial capability, will not be
addressed as a part of an AT project
review.
Under the Clean Water Act prior to
awarding a construction grant, the
Administrator is specifically charged
with making certain determination,
including whether the grantee has the
necessary financial and management
capability to construct,,operate, and
maintain the wastewater treatment
facilities. To serve the intent of the
Clean Water Act, the Agency
emphasizes that all grantees must
demonstrate financial capability prior to
a construction grant award [40 CFR
35.2104]. The Agency has prepared a
policy on financial capability and
guidance that grantees can use to meet
the policy requirements. An adequate
demonstration will involve a more
comprehensive analysis and display of
data and information than previously
required on local financial and
management capabilities.
C. Inflationary Impacts. Since the
initiation, of the AT project reviews
under PRM 79-7, EPA Headquarters has
received over eighty projects for review.
In more than half of all the projects
reviewed, AT project components-were
deferred, usually pending additional
water quality justification. Real resource
costs (constant dollars) saved or
deferred so far total $710 million. In
order to reduce' the adverse effects of
rising costs caused by inflationary
factors, the Agency had suggested
provisions for excluding projects where
the costs for AT could be less than the
inflationary costs of delay. However,
since there has now been ample
opportunity for grantees, States and
Regions to anticipate needed AT
reviews, and since inflation has
lessened, the Agency has eliminated
exemptions based on inflationary
factors.
d. Review Responsibilities. Some
proposed changes to the AT review
policy were precluded by the language
of the Appropriations Committee
actions. For projects with AT
incremental costs over $3 million, the FT
81 Appropriations Conference
Committee Report directed the Agency
to continue the AT project reviews,
perform the reviews at Headquarters,
and cease delegation of data collection
and project evaluation to Regions and
States. The PY 81 Appropriations Act
(Pub. L. 96-526) further provided for the
continuation of AT project reviews by
exempting them "from Appropriation Act
language which otherwise prohibited
retroactive requirements for the
construction grants program.
Additionally, the FY 84 House
Appropriations Committee Report (98-
223) urged that State and Regional
reviews be based on the same set of
criteria as Headquarters to avoid
potential wasted effort in planning and
design of projects that may not be
approvable. Therefore, the AT review
policy does not include provisions of the
June 20,1980 draft that would have
delegated Headquarters review or
preparation of reports to the Regions or
delegated States for projects with an
incremental cost over $3 million.
The June 20,1980 draft classified AT
projects as either advanced waste
treatment (AWT) or advanced
secondary treatment (AST). That
distinction has been dropped; AT will be
used to refer to both AWT and AST.
The June 20 draft specified that all AWT
projects and those AST projects costing
over $3 million beyond secondary go to
Headquarters for review. To be
consistent and reduce confusion, the
policy requires that only those AT
(AWT or AST) projects with an
incremental cost over $3 million undergo
Headquarters review..
6. Elimination of two discrete and
separate levels of review. The June 20
draft described two levels of review
reports: Effluent limitations assessments
and comprehensive evaluations. The
assessment was less broad In scope
than the evaluation. The level of project
review resulted from screening for
financial impact and inflation impact.
The policy eliminates the distinction hi
favor of one assessment which may vary
in detail from case to case. This action
was based on EPA's experience in the
past two years and the finding that few
projects fit neatly into one category of
review or another. The Agency's
underlying premise in defining the scope
of each project review will be to
continue to concentrate on only those
issues related to AT funding decisions.
Issues will be narrowly defined at first
and then broadened if other factors
affecting the need for AT are
demonstrated. Regions and States are
strongly encouraged to submit AT
projects for early Headquartes reviews
of effluent limitations and modeling
issues, so that issues will be narrowly
defined at the time of the specific
project review.
(FR Doc. 84-12313 Filed 5-18-84:8:45 am]
MUJNO CODE W60-60-M
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF EPA PUBLICATIONS
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF EPA PUBLICATIONS
LIST OF SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
1. A Guide to Regulations and
Guidance for the Utilization
and Disposal of Municipal
Sludge, (EPA 430/9-80-015),
September 1980.
2. Cost of Land Treatment Systems
(EPA 430/9-75-003), Revised
September 1979.
3. Construction Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Conveyance
Systems, 1973-1979,
(EPA 430/9-81-003), January 1981.
4. Construction Costs for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants,
1973-1978, (EPA 430/9-80-003),
April 1980.
5. Composting Processes to Stabilize
and Disinfect Municipal Sewage
Sludge (EPA 430/9-81-011),
June 1981.
6. Design Manual - Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems,
(EPA 625/1-80-012), October 1980.
7. Environmental Assessment of
Construction Grants Projects
(EPA 430/9/-79-007),
Jaunary 1979
8. Field Manual - Performance
Evaluation and Troubleshooting
at Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, (EPA 430/9-78-001),
January 1978.
ORDERING SOURCE AND NUMBER
EPA - WH-547
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Ordering No. MCD-72
EPA (address above)
Ordering No. MCD-10
EPA (address above)
Ordering No. FRD-21
EPA (address above)
Ordering No. FRD-11
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information
Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703) 487-4650
USEPA - CERI
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 684-7562
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 299209/AS
Information Reference Center
(IRC)
The Ohio State University
1200 Chambers Road - Rm. 310
Columbus, Ohio 43212
(614) 422-6717
Ordering No. 016U
B-l
-------
LIST OF SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
ORDERING SOURCE AND NUMBER
9. Financial Capability Guidebook,
March 1984
10. Handbook for Sewer Systems
Evaluation and Rehabilitation,
(EPA 430/9-75-021), December 1975.
11. Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual,
(EPA 430/9-78-009), February 1980.
12. Innovative and Alternative
Technology Case Studies,
(EPA 430/9-81-010), January 1981.
13. Management of Construction
Grant Change Orders - A-Guide
for Grantees, March 1983.
14. Management of On-Site and Small
Community Wastewater Systems
(EPA 600/8-82-009),
July 1982
15. Management of Small Flows
(EPA 600/2-78-173), September 1980.
16. Manual of Practice - Sewer System
Evaluation, Rehabilitation and New
Construction, (EPA 600/2-77-017d)
17. Overview of the National Pretreatment
Program, March 1984
18. Process Design Manual - Sludge
Treatment and Disposal,
(EPA 625/1-79-011), October 1979.
19. Process Design Manual - Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,
(EPA 625/1-81-013), October 1981.
20. Sludge Treatment and Disposal,
2 Volumes, (EPA 625/4-78-012),
October 1978.
NTIS (address above)
Order by title
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 257457/AS
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 81103277
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 81246126
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 83211490
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 82260829
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 286560
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 279248/AS
EPA-EN-336
Permits Division
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 80200546
USEPA - CERI (address above)
NTIS (address above)
Volume 1 - "Sludge Treatment"
Ordering No. PB 299593/AS
Volume 2 - "Sludge Disposal"
Ordering No. PB 299594/2BE
B-2
-------
LIST OF SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
ORDERING SOURCE AND NUMBER
21. Small Wastewater Systems -
Alternative Systems for Small
Communities and Rural Areas,
January 1980. (foldout)
22. Uniform Appraisal Standards
for Federal Land Acquisition.
EPA (address above)
Ordering No. FRD-10
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 783-3238
Ordering No. 052-059-000020
Other information
from:
is available
CAPDET Center
Civil Engineering Department
Mississippi State University
P.O. Box C E
Mississippi, Missouri 39762
National Small Wastewater Flows
Clearinghouse (SAWS)
258 Stewart Street
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
(800) 624-8301
Innovative and Alternative
Technology Clearinghouse
Municipal Research Laboratory
26 West St. Clair
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513) 684-7611
A Planning and Design Guidebook
for Combined Sewer Overflow
Control and Treatment,
(EPA 600/2-82-084), August 1982.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 40 - Protection of Environment
NTIS (address above)
Ordering No. PB 82 259235
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402
(202) 783-3238
(Telephone for prices of
sections needed).
B-3
-------
LIST OF SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Considerations for Preparation
of Operation and Maintenance
Manuals, January 1974.
Rural and Small Town Planning
ORDERING SOURCE AND NUMBER
IRC (address above)
Ordering No. 05U
American Planning Association
Planners Press
1313 East 60th
Chicago, Illinois 60637
(312) 955-9100, ext. 265
Price: $14.95
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
BEFORE AND AFTER
STUDY GUIDANCE
-------
APPENDIX C
"BEFORE AND AFTER" STUDY GUIDANCE
This document presents technical procedures on how to assess the water
Quality improvements that result from the construction of municipal and
industrial treatment facilities. A wide variation of water quality data, from
limited biological surveys to comprehensive studies of the physical and
chemical properties of the receiving water, can be used to identify changes in
water quality over time. By documenting the water quality responses to
increased treatment, these "before and after" analyses can be used to evaluate
how effective various treatment processes are in meeting water quality goals
and objectives.
Under severe budgetary constraints, Congress, State and local governments
and laypersons have expressed increasing concern over whether expenditures for
water pollution control have resulted in significant improvements in water
quality and water uses. In particular, analyses used to predict the water
quality impact of expensive advanced treatment (AT) processes have recently
been reevaluated by EPA and the States either directly or indirectly as part
of EPA's AT Review Program. As more water quality emphasis is placed on the
construction grant program, additional analyses will be needed to show that
the greatest water quality improvement is being provided at the least cost.
A post-operation or "after" study is essentially a wasteload allocation
performed after completion and operation of a treatment process, with
particular emphasis placed on the beneficial use impacts. Consequently,
biological evaluations, along with the physical and chemical data commonly
collected in a wasteload allocation, can be compared to any historical or
"before" data to detect how changes in water quality impact beneficial uses.
Further comparisons using a mathematical model can also be used to predict
current and future water quality conditions with and without the treatment
process. The result is an actual measurement, either qualitative or
quantitive, of the water quality effects of the discharge and associated
treatment processes on water quality and water uses.
The following tasks outline sample procedures that snould be considered in
designing a "before and after" study program. In addition, a report entitled
"Before and After Comparisons of Water Quality Following Municipal Treatment
Plant Improvements" is available in which thirteen before .and after case
studies were performed; see the bibliography appendix. This guidance and the
case study report also addresses some of the other beneficial consequences
that can result from such a program, as listed below.
o These studies can also be used to determine the need for additional
treatment or the need for revision of the water quality standards.
o Comparison of the "before and after" water quality conditions can be
used to determine the accuracy of wasteload allocation predictions and
the appropriateness of the wasteload allocation procedures and
assumptions.
o These studies can detect previously unknown causes of water quality
problems that prevent attainment of beneficial uses.
-------
I. Project Selection Criteria
The following general criteria can be used to select the types of projects
best suited for "before and after" analyses.
- Municipal or industrial treatment facilities which have significantly
improved their performance or installed new unit processes.
Non-complex planning situations to simplify the development of
relationships between the discharge loadings and the water quality
response.
- Projects should have some water quality data, either biological and/or
chemical, which represents the "before" conditions. However, projects
without "before" modeling should also be included to determine the extent
to which water quality improvements can be demonstrated without "before"
data or modeling. For example, if only a State policy was used to justify
a project, the collection of "after" data will be useful in either
verifying or refuting the assumptions which form the basis of the policy.
- Projects with both detailed "before" modeling work and biological data are
particularly useful.
- Projects should have historical performance data for the major discharges
in the study area.
Selection should not be biased toward projects that are considered to
provide the greatest water quality improvement. Understanding which
planning situations (type of receiving water and treatment process)
provide only a small water quality improvement are also useful.
- Projects can cover several types of receiving waters, treatment processes
and the level of technical justification, as listed below.
Receiving Waters:
o Streams/rivers -- high, medium, low and intermittent flows
o Lakes -- long and short detention times, deep and shallow
oligotrophic and eutrophic.
o Others — estuaries, oceans, bays, etc.
Treatment Levels:
o Secondary
o Nitrification
o Tertiary filtration
o Nutrient removal
o Others
-------
Justification Levels;
o Detailed modeling with data . n
o Simplified modeling with or without data; e.g., simplified Modeling
Methodology
o Data analysis only; e.g., loading calculations or biological data
analysis
o State policy supported by data
o State policy with no data
II. Assess the "Before" Water Quality Condition
Gather the following types of data for each project.
o Facility planning information including the "before", "after" and
projected flow conditions, loadings, population served and types of
processes.
o Plant performance data that corresponds to the period that water
quality data was collected; e.g., flow and concentration.
o Hydrologic data used to determine the critical condition; i.e. 7Q10.
o Water quality data used to support the modeling and other data which
characterize water quality prior to the completion of the construction
project.
o Water quality data for waters other than the project receiving water
which may also exhibit an improvement; e.g., projects which include
elimination of discharges as part of a regionalization of wastewater
treatment.
o Data which characterizes the biological integrity of the receiving
water. This data is particularly useful in assessing water quality
improvements.
o Model or data analysis documentation. Information should include:
model type or analysis used, rates selected, assumptions used during
calibration, sensitivity/uncertainty, and other information wln'ch is
needed to reconstruct the WLA.
o Water quality standards currently in effect for the receiving water.
Compile raw data in a form that can be used to evaluate the "before" water
quality situation. For example, plot DO, nutrients, SOD, BOD, and model
rates versus river mile; prepare bar graphs of point and nonpoint source
loadings in lake situations; map locations of dischargers and sampling
stations.
Identify data that indicate a water quality problem, both upstream and
downstream of the discharges. What parameters are significant? Compare
this "problem" data to any standards in effect such as DO. Which
-------
standards are being violated under existing conditions? What is the
spatial and temporal extent of the problem?
Summarize the "before" water quality condition.
III. Assess the Predicted Water Quality Improvement
Reinterate the conclusions of the original wasteload allocation (WLA).
o If previous modeling work was used to justify the project, outline the
water quality response that the model predicted; e.g., DO improvement,
reduced spatial extent of problem, etc.
o If a loading analysis was used in the WLA, summarize the impact that
the loading reduction is predicted to have and document the rationale
used to relate the reductions to improved water quality. For example
if ammonia toxicity was used as a basis for justifying nitrification,
what was the reduction in unionized ammonia levels that was predicted
to occur downstream of the plant?
o If no modeling or other analyses were used to determine permit
limitation (e.g., State policy was used in lieu of a WLA), summarize
the rationale used to support the limitation for each specific project
and determine from this the "assumed" water quality improvement.
Describe the predicted water quality improvement in terms that can be
measured in an "after" water quality study; e.g., DO, nutrient,
chlorophyll "a" concentrations, BOD, algal type, SOD, etc. In other
words, identify the parameters that should be measured in an "after" study.
Determine the sensitivity of the WLA and the impact of the uncertainty on
the ability of the project to achieve the predicted water quality
improvement.
IV. Collect and Compile Post-Operation Water Quality Data
Design the "after" survey similar to the "before" survey in terms of the
time of year and day, temperature, location, etc. so that consistent
comparisons can be made. Note that some revisions to the "before" survey
design may be necessary in designing the "after" survey.
In particular, collect data that will clarify the uncertainties of the
previous WLA and further describes the water quality problem.
If modeling was previously used, collect data that are needed to refine
key rates or other data to verify previous predictions.
If plant was not justified by a wasteload allocation modeling study or was
justified by a State policy, collect data necessary to develop a
calibrated model which will reflect the "after" water quality condition.
Back calibrating the model to reflect the "before" plant loading condition
can then be used as the basis for comparison.
-------
Collect "after" data on all waters affected by the project under
evaluation. For example, if the project involves regionalization of
wastwater treatment, the water quality improvement resulting from removal
of a discharge should be documented.
If "before" biological data is available (fish population,
macroinvertebrate diversity, algal types, etc.) collect similar "after"
biological data.
Collect biological data upstream and downstream of the plant to establish
a background biological condition.
Collect any data that are used as criteria in water quality standards;
e.g., DO and coliforms.
V. Assess the Measured Water Quality Improvement
Table 1 describes in tabular form the types of "before and after"
comparisons and time frames that can be used to estimate water quality
improvements. The types of comparisons are described in detail below and
include the use of loading calculations, model results such as dissolved
oxygen and chlorophyll "a", biological data and water use information to
measure the improvements in water quality.
Several time frames should be used to determine both short and long-term
improvements. This distinction is essential in situations where the
design capacity of the plant has not been reached at the time the "after"
data was collected. Short-term improvements are those actually measured
by the "after" study and include the four comparison categories listed in
Table 1. Long-term improvements are those which are expected to occur
between the time "after" data was collected and the end of the twenty year
planning period (i.e., when the plant reaches its design capacity.)
Although these long-term improvements must be predicted with a model or
otherwise estimated from current information, the improved reliability in
the modeling work afforded by the "before" and "after" analysis should
provide additional accuracy to the original WLA predictions. Those
predicted long-term improvements are therefore also suggested as a
component of the program design.
It should be assured in each case that water quality changes measured in
the "after" survey are due to the plant improvements and not due to a
change in upstream or background pollutant loadings. If the background
condition has changed significantly (e.g., removal or addition of another
discharge), an additional comparison of the-"after" water quality
condition without the plant improvements will be needed to establish a
basis for comparison. The following techniques can be used to measure the
water quality improvements.
Loading Comparisons (Quantitative) - Calculate loadings for parameters
reduced by the treatment plant under "before", "after" (current) and
future conditions.
-------
Model Comparisons (Quantitative) - Use the "before" and "after" data to
calibrate and verify a water quality model. In non-complex water quality
situations, a simplified model can be used.
o If a model was previously used in the original wasteload allocation,
recalibrate the model using the "after" data. Refine the rates used
in the earlier modeling work if necessary. Run the models under
consistent "before" and "after" conditions (e.g., 7Q10, temperature,
etc,) to provide a basis for comparison.
o If no model was previously used in the original wasteload allocation,
use the "after" data to calibrate a water quality model. To provide a
basis for comparison change the key rates (e.g., Kd) and input
variables (e.g., BOD/NH3 loadings) such that the output reflects the
"before" water quality conditions.
o Review the model output and determine if plant improvements reduced
the spatial and temporal extent of DO problems.
o For projects with nutrient removal to lakes, a Vollenweider type
analysis may often be used to measure in-lake phosphorus
concentrations. Use available regression techniques to translate
phosphorus concentrations to chlorophyll "a" concentration. How did
the plant reduce in-lake phytoplankton concentrations?
o In cases where SOD is a significant problem and has been measured in
the "after" survey, use rough estimates based on literature values to
determine reductions in SOD (i.e., since it is difficult to
definitively predict reductions in SOD).
Biological Comparisons (Qualitative)
o Gather "after" biological data consistent with "before" data.
o Use available biological data to subjectively assess the biological
water quality improvements; e.g., fish, macroinvertebrate,
phytoplankton, habitat, etc. Use biological indexes if possible.
o Compare biological data to chemical data and the above reference
quantitative analyses. This will help determine relationships between
chemical criteria and biological responses.
o Determine the extent to which the biological response is due to the
plant improvements.
Use Comparisons (Qualitative)
Determine the extent to which the above comparisons show that uses have
been improved by the project. Did the water quality improvement result in
an improved fisheries which in turn result in greater use of area waters
for fishing? Use the above chemical and biological comparisons to
determine whether the plant improvement lead to an improvement in
fisheries potential.
-------
7
o If possible, contact local fish and wildlife offices to determine if
uses have increased; e.g., number of fishing licences. Contact local
citizens to determine if casual use has increased.
o Did water quality improvement result in improved boating, swimming or
shell fishing uses? Use the above chemical and biological comparisons
to determine whether the plant improvement lead to an improved
potential for these users.
o If possible, contact local health departments to determine if the
number of days when shellfish beds of swimming areas were closed has
decreased.
o Did the project improve the quality of a drinking water source?
o Did the project result in attainment of water quality standards?
Compare the measured or predicted water quality improvements to the
water quality standards for the receiving water. If it is determined
that standards will not be attained with the current project, use the
model or other predictive tool to determine whether additional
treatment will significantly improve water quality or attain standards.
o Identify reasons for non-attainment of standards other than the point
source discharge. For example, do toxic compounds, nonpoint sources,
sediments or previously unidentified pollution sources prevent
attainment of water quality standards?
VI. Summarize Water Quality Improvements
Summarize the water quality and use improvements for each type of
treatment process and receiving water.
Summarize the types of data and analyses that are best suited to
quantifying water quality improvements. Categorize by type of treatment
and receiving water.
Identify the planning situations (treatment process and receiving water
type) that result in the greatest water quality improvement at the least
cost.
If standards were not attained with the treatment process, determine
whether additional treatment or further analysis of the water quality
standards is needed.
Compare the predicted and measured responses.
If the responses are significantly different, determine what assumptions,
reaction rates, state policies or WLA procedures caused the prediction to
be inaccurate.
Identify the anomalies in State waste!oad allocation procedures and make
appropriate changes.
-------
8
Table 1
Sample Comparisons
Water Quality Improvements
Short-term(Z) Long-term (3)
Improvements Improvements(20 years)
Analysis "Before"(U "After" With Project Without"
Project
1. Loading Comparisons
COD/UOD/BOD
NH3/N02/N03
Phosphorus
coliforms
metals, other
2. Modeling Comparisons
DO
chlorophyll "a"
Phosphorus
SOD
3. Biological Comparisons
Fish populations
Diversity Indexes
Habitat Improvement
Turbidity
4. Use Comparisons
General Descriptions (Aesthetics)
Swimming days
Shell fishing Harvesting days
(1) Water quality condition measured before construction of the project.
(2) Water quality condition measured during post-operation water quality
study. If the plant has recently come on line, this condition most likely
will not represent future flow (population) conditions modeled in the original
wasteload allocation.
(3) Water quality condition projected to the end of the 20 year planning
period. Comparison of the improvement with and without the processes under
evaluation can be used to predict future water quality improvements. Note
that the original model should be corrected based on the comparison of
"before" and "after" data and model results oefore projecting long-term
improvements.
-------
APPENDIX D
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
-------
APPENDIX D
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF POLICY
When the Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed in 1972, Congress gave municipal-
ities until 1977 to comply with its requirements. Congress authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the deadline to 1983 and then
again to July 1, 1988, for some municipalities. In addition, Congress amended
the CWA in 1981 to modify the basic treatment requirements. Therefore, Congress
has authorized EPA to give some municipalities several additional years to
achieve compliance and has also provided more reasonable treatment requirements
for certain types of facilities.
The CWA requires all publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to meet the
statutory compliance deadlines and to achieve the water quality objectives of the
CWA, whether or not they receive Federal funds. The EPA will focus on POTWs
that previously received Federal funding assistance and are not currently in
compliance with their applicable effluent limits, on all other major POTWs, and
on. minor POTWs that are contributing significantly to an impairment of water
quality. EPA's goal will be to obtain compliance by POTWs as soon as possible,
and no later than July 1, 1988. Where there are extraordinary circumstances
that preclude compliance of such facilities by July 1, 1988, EPA will work with
States and the affected municipal authorities to ensure that these POTWs are on
enforceable schedules for achieving compliance as soon as possible thereafter,
and are doing all they can in the meantime to abate pollution to the Nation's
water.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The Agency is committed to pursuing a clear course of action that fulfills
the intent of Congress and results in the maximum improvement in water quality.
The Agency is also committed to protecting the public's financial investment in
wastewater treatment facilities. To meet these objectives, the Agency expects
EPA regions and states to adhere to the National policy stated above and to use
the following mechanisms to carry out the intent of this policy.
EPA regions will cooperate with their respective states to develop strategies
that describe how they plan to bring noncomplying facilities into compliance.
These strategies should include a complete inventory of all noncomplying
facilities, should identify the affected municipalities consistent with the
National policy, and should describe a plan to bring these POTWs into compliance
as soon as possible. Regions and states will then use the annual state program
grant negotiation process to reach agreement on the specific activities they will
undertake to carry out the plan.
D-l
-------
Based on the information in the final strategies, the permitting authority
(Region or approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
State) will require affected municipal authorities to develop one of the
following as necessary:
Composite Correction Plan: An affected municipality that has a
constructed POTW that is not in compliance with its NPDES permit effluent
limits will be required to develop a Composite Correction Plan (CCP).
The CCP should describe the cause(s) of noncompliance, should outline the
corrective actions necessary to achieve compliance, and should provide a
schedule for completing the required work and for achieving compliance.
Municipal Compliance Plan: An affected municipality that needs to
construct a wastewater treatment facility in order to achieve compliance
will be required to develop a Municipal Compliance Plan (MCP). The MCP
should describe the necessary treatment technology and estimated cost,
should outline the proposed sources and methods of financing the proposed
facility (both construction and operation and maintenance), and should
provide a schedule for achieving compliance as soon as possible.
The permitting authority will use the information in these plans and will
work with the affected municipality to develop a reasonable schedule for
achieving compliance. In any case, where the affected municipal authority is
unable to achieve compliance promptly, the permitting authority will, in addition
to setting a schedule for achieving full compliance, ensure that the POTW
undertakes appropriate interim steps that lead to full compliance as soon as
possible. Where there are extraordinary circumstances that make it impossible
for an affected municipal authority to meet a July 1, 1988, compliance date, the
permitting authority will work with the affected municipality to establish a
fixed-date schedule to achieve compliance in the shortest, reasonable period
of time thereafter, including interim abatement measures as appropriate.
The general goal is to establish enforceable compliance schedules for all
affected municipalities by the end of FY 1985. Once schedules for affected
municipalities are in place, the permitting authority will monitor progress
towards compliance and will take follow-up action as appropriate. Nothing
in this policy is intended to impede or delay any ongoing or future enforcement
actions.
OVERVIEW
EPA headquarters will overview the implementation of this policy to ensure
that actions taken by regions and states are consistent with National policy and
that the Agency as a whole is making progress towards meeting the statutory
deadlines and achieving the water quality objectives of the CWA.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
PRESENT WORTH AND COST PREFERENCE
-------
APPENDIX E
PRESENT WORTH AND COST PREFERENCE EXAMPLES
Example 1: Varying O&M Cost, Staged Construction, and SaTvage VaTue
Given:
sewage treatment plant
capacity: year 1-10, 5 mgd; years 11-20, 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; $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;
c. constant annual O&M cost, years 11-20: $155,000;
d. variable annual O&M cost, years 11-20: increases linearly from
$0-$29,000 in year 20.
discount rate: 8 1/8%
Determine: Present worth and annual equivalent unifrom cost of plant over 20
years.
Method: Present worth equals capital cost plus present worth of the operating
and maintenance costs. Calculate O&M costs from 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 equals the present worth times the appropriate
capital recovery factor.
Step 1:
Initial capital cost $2,000,000
Step 2:
Present worth of expansion cost which occurs at year 10, times single payment
present worth factor @ 8 1/8% for 10 years. Thus:
$1,500,000 (.458) $ 687,000
E-l
-------
Step 3:
Calculate present worth of O&M costs as follows:
a. Present worth of constant annual years 1-10 equals given cost times uniform
series present worth factors @ 8 1/8% for 10 years. Thus:
$84,000 (6.672) $ 560,450
b. Present worth of variable O&M costs years 1-10 equals gradient series
($2,900) times present worth factor of a gradient series @ 8 1/8% for 10
years. Thus:
$2,900 (25.769) $ 74,730
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 @ 8 1/8% for 10 years (.458). Thus, present worth in
year 1 equals:
$165,000 (6.672)(.458) $ 504,200
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 8 1/8% for 10 years (.458). Thus:
$2,900 (25.769) (.458) $ 34,230
Step 4:
Present worth of salvage value at end of 20 years equals that value times
single payment present worth factor @ 8 1/8% for 20 years. Thus:
$750,000 (.210) $ 157,500
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 expansion at year 10 .... $ 687,000
E-2
-------
present worth of constant O&M years
1-10 $ 560,450
present worth of variable O&M years
1-10 $ 74,730
present worth of constant O&M years
11-20 $ 504,200
present worth of variable. O&il years
11-20 $ 34,230
Total $3,860,610
Subtract from total the present worth of salvage value:
present worth of salvage value $ 157,500
PRESENT WORTH of plant $3,703,110
Step 6:
Multiplying present worth of plant (Step 5) times the capital recovery factor
@ 8 1/8 for 20 years will yield equivalent uniform annual equivalent cost.
Thus:
$3,703,110 (.1028) $ 380,680
E-3
-------
Example 2: Present Worth Analysis of Onsite System Alternative
Given:
individual onsite treatment systems consisting of:
a. rehabilitation, upgrading or replacement of onsite systems for
200 existing homes;
b. major rehabilitation of 10 onsite systems per year;
c. construction of 100 onsite systems for new homes.
planning period: 20 years
salvage value at end of 20 years: $120,000
capital costs:
a. rehabilitation, upgrading, replacement of 200 existing systems:
$400,000
b. rehabilitation of 10 systems per year: $20,000 per year
c. construction of 100 new systems (5 per year for 20 years):
$13,000 per year*
average annual operation and maintenance cost (onsite management
program for 500 systems): $25,000 per year
discount rate: 8 1/8 percent
Determine: Present worth and equivalent uniform annual cost over 20 years.
Method: Present worth equals initial capital cost plus present worth of future
capital costs plus present worth of operation and maintenance costs. Subtract
present worth of salvage value. Equivalent uniform annual costs equals the
present worth times the appropriate capital recovery factor.
Step 1:
Initial capital cost $400,000
Step 2:
Calculate present worth of annual capital costs as follows:
a. annual capital costs equal $20,000 per year plus $13,000 per year
equals $33,000 per year.
b. present worth of annual capital cost equals given cost tines the
uniform series present worth factor at 8-1/8% for 20 years. Thus:
$33,000 (9.728) $321,000
*Not eligible for EPA grant funding
E-4
-------
Step 3:
Present worth of annual O&M cost equals annual O&M costs times the uniform
series present worth factor at 8-1/8% for 20 years. Thus:
$25,000 (9.728) $243,200
Step 4:
Present worth of salvage value at end of twenty years equals that value times
the single payment present worth factor at 8-1/8% for 20 years. Thus:
$120,000 (.210) $ 25,200
Step 5:
The sum of values obtained in steps 1,2, and 3 minus the value obtained in
step 4 equal present worth of alternative. Thus:
Initial capital cost $400,000
Present worth of future capital costs .... 321,000
Present worth of O&M 243,000
Total $%4,800
Subtract from total the present worth of salvage value:
Present worth salvage value $ 25,200
PRESENT WORTH of alternative $938,800
Step 6
The present worth just derived times the capital recovery factor at 8-1/8% for
20 years will yield equivalent uniform annual cost. Thus:
$938,800 (.1028) $ 96,500
NOTE: When comparing conventional systems with alternative systems all costs,
eligible and ineligible, must be considered, including service lines and
hookup fees.
E-5
-------
Example 3: Land Application
Given:
sewage treatment plant
capacity: 4.0 mgd
planning period: 20 years
capital cost: $7,300,000 including land cost of $137,000
average annual operation and maintenance cost: $246,200
average annual crop yield $20,000
discount rate: 8-1/8 percent
salvage value excluding land: $2,236,200
Determine: Present worth over 20 years.
Method: Present worth equals the sum of capital cost plus present worth of
the annual O&M minus the present worth of the average annual crop yield minus
the present worth of the salvage value (Note: Land values must be appreciated
at 3 percent/year before a salvage value is computed).
Step 1:
Capital cost $7,300,000
Step 2:
Present worth of an annual cost equals annual cost times the uniform series
present worth factor @ 8-1/855 for 20 years. The present worth of crop
production is subtracted from the present worth of O&M to give the present
worth of annual costs for the system.
O&M: $246,200 (9.728) $2,395,000
Crops: 20,000 (9.728) $ 194,600
PRESENT WORTH of annual costs 52,200,400
Step 3:
Compute the future value for the land by multiplying the present value of land
by the compound amount factor @ 3 percent for 20 years.
Future value: $137,000 (1.806) $ 247,400
Step 4:
Compute the total present worth of the salvage value by multiplying the value
at the end of 20 years times the single payment present worth factor @ 8-1/8
percent for 20 years. Thus:
Land: $247,400 (.210) $ 52,000
Treatment plant 2,236,000 (.210) $ 469,500
Total $ 521,600
E-6
-------
Step 5:
The sum of the value obtained in Step 1 and 2 minus the value obtained in
Step 4 equals present worth of the plant. Thus:
Initial capital cost $ 7,300,000
Present worth of annual costs $ 2,200,400
Total $ 9,500,400
Subtract from total the present worth of
salvage value:
present worth of salvage value .... $ 521,600
PRESENT WORTH of plant $ 8,978,800
Note: If the land used for land application is purchased or leased by the
municipality, the land is considered a cost to the project and therefore does
enter into the present worth analysis. If a sharecropping arrangement exists
between the municipality and the farmer, only the profits/losses realized by
the municipality are used in the present worth analysis (Chapter 7).
E-7
-------
EXAMPLE 4. Application of I&A Cost Preference
Given:
A proposed project includes portions which are classified as
nonconventional (innovative or alternative technology). These components
are the primary and secondary processes (pretreatment and land application)
but sludge disposal is by conventional technology (sanitary landfill).
The present worth costs (including building, land, engineering fees, bond
sale fees and start-up services) of the proposed system and the most
cost-effective conventional system are shown below.
Most Cost-Effective Proposed
Conventional Nonconventional
System Technology System
Capital PresentCapitalPresent
Cost North* Cost Worth *
Primary $ 100 $ 110 "$ TT J3T~
Secondary 720 753 830 905
Sludge Disposal 873 971 873 971
Total $1,593 $1,834 $1,734 $1,911
includes O&M
Determine: Whether the nonconventional technology system is cost effective
by application of cost-preference procedures described in
Chapter 7.
a. $971 (total present worth of conventional component of nonconventional
technology system)
b. $ 971 = 51% (percentage of total present worth represented by
1,911 conventional components; Note-: more than 50%)
c. (1) $110 + $753 = $863 (present worth of replaced components in the
most cost-effective conventional 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 nonconventional
technology system is considered'cost effective and may be selected by
grantee.
GRANT CALCULATION:
Capital costs of nonconventional technology components (85% grant)
$31 + $830 = $861 (.85) $ 731.85
Capital Costs of conventional components (75% grant)
$873 (.75) $ 654.75
Total Grant $1,386.60
E-8
-------
APPENDIX F
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (FmHA)
-------
APPENDIX F
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the Federal Govern-
ment's lead agency for support of rural development. Most USDA programs to help
finance the planning and building of better rural community facilities are
administered through the Farmers Home Administrarion (FmHA). They represent the
largest Federal source of community facility loans and grants specifically
for rural needs.
FmHA financial assistance is available for original installation or
improvement of waste disposal systems. Projects may be located in or serve
towns of not more than 10,000 population and open countryside. FmHA regulations
pertaining to the community facility programs are 7 CFR Part 1942, Subpart A
and 7 CFR Part 1942, Subpart H.
The local share of an Environmental Protection Agency project plus the
ineligible costs associated with that project may be financed by the FmHA.
Applicants are encouraged to contact the FmHA as early in the project planning
phase as possible.
Inquiry about applying for an FmHA loan or grant may be made at FmHA County,
District or State Office. Office locations are listed in the "U.S. Government"
section of telephone directories under "Department of Agriculture".Office
locations can also be obtained by contacting the Farmers Home Administration,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. 20250.
F-l
-------
APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
FOR LAND ACQUISITION
-------
APPENDIX G
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION
Applicable Regulations:
Any land acquired in conjunction with federally funded projects is subject to
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (P.L. 91-646). EPA regulations implementing P.L. 91-646 are found in CFR
Part 4. All appraisals setting the fair market value of land to be acquired must
be consistent with "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition"
prepared by the Interagency Land Acquisition Conference and available through the
Government Printing Office (GPO Stock Number 052-059-00002-01).
Costs in excess of just compensation (based on appraisals, your record
of negotiations, or condemnation proceedings or determined by the Regional
Administrator) are unallowable for grant assistance, therefore, you should obtain
your reviewing agency's approval that the proposed purchase price represents just
compensation for the property.
EPA regulations require you to record EPA's interest in real property
acquired with construction grant funds, and to obtain approval to use the
property for other purposes, and to request instructions from EPA on how to
dispose of the property (40 CFR 30.535). The recorded title to the property
should include the following language:
Federal Lien: Federal grant funds have been used to purchase this
property. The United States interest is percent (depending on
the Federal Share at the time of grant award) of the proceeds from
any subsequent sale or current fair market value of the property
(40 CFR 30.535). A lien to this effect and extent is thereby asserted.
The final payment request is not released until municipalities demonstrate
that the recorded title documents include the above paragraph or equivalent
language protecting the Federal interest (40 CFR 30.535).
Professional Land Acquisition Staff:
It is most advisable to have all land acquisition carried out by acquisition
professionals with experience in working with the Federal requirements and
eminent domain procedures. If the grantee does not have access to a professional
land acquisition staff with experience in working with P.L. 91-646, arrangements
should be made to consult or contract with outside professionals.
The Federal Highway Administration has right-of-way offices in each State's
capital city and their staff can provide an overview of acquisition expertise
within the State, including State professional and independent contractors as
well as advice on a land acquisition plan. Each State has department of
6-1
-------
transportation or right-of-way offices located in the capital city. Most of
these State offices can provide acquisition assistance to the acquisition
responsibility. Some States have other professional staff available, such as
State parkes or State general services administration. Some counties or nearby
cities may also be able to provide professional assistance. Most Federal and
State offices have lists of qualified appraisers whom they employ when they
require additional appraisals for their projects.
Appraisals:
The grantees should make every effort to ensure that the appraiser has
sufficient knowledge and experience in the type of appraisal problem to be solved
and is thoroughly familiar with local conditions and property values. It is
necessary to check credentials and experience of independent professionals
thoroughly. The use of city, county, State, or Federal staff has the advantage
that they have met the requirements of their job descriptions which increases the
probability of getting qualified professionals.
There are professional appraisal organizations which sponsor training,
publish guidance and information, require proof of attainment of expertise for
certification or professional designation in the organization and monitor work
performed by their members. Appraisers who are certified or designated members
of these organizations are required to follow the organization's Code of Ethics
and are subject to disciplinary actions and dismissal for failure to perform
according to the standards of the organization. A list of appraisers for a
given area can be obtained from the headquarters officers of each appraisal
organization:
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
400 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
American Society of Appraisers
Post Office Box 17265
Washington, D.C. 20041
American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers
Post Office Box 6857
Denver, Colorado 80206
National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers
7501 Murdoch
St. Louis, Missouri 63119
Society of Real Estate Appraisers
645 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
It is mot desirable to select knowledgeable local appraisers who hold
memberships in one or more of these organizations and can demonstrate expertise
in the type of appraisal to be performed. For further information, contact the
land acquisition coordinator in your EPA Regional Office.
6-2
-------
Appraisal Review:
If the grantee does not employ or affiliate with an agency that employs
qualified review appraisers on its staff, some other means of appraisal review
by appropriately qualified individuals should be found. Various methods such
as the use of independent fee appraisers (members of professional appraisal
organizations) or qualified appraisal review personnel from county, State, or
Federal agencies could be used. If the estimated fair market value of the land
to be acquired is greater than $100,000, two appraisals should be obtained. The
reviewer would approve one of the appraisals or request additional appraisals.
Negotiation:
There should be no negotiation with the landowner prior to the establishment
of an amount of just compensation following the appraisal of the real property
and review of the price to be offered by the reviewing agency. The land owner
or the landowner's designated representative must be given an opportunity to
accompany the appraiser during the inspection of the property. Some limited or
modest increase above the approved appraised value may be paid to avoid the cost,
time, and public relations problems involved with condemnation if approved by the
Regional Administrator. However, the grantee should be prepared to initiate
eminent domain proceedings if the required land cannot readily be acquired for a
reasonable price.
Options:
Options may be used to tie up land if purchase money is not readily
available. Land can be optioned or purchased as soon as all environmental
documents have been approved and the site has been determined to be suitable.
However, approval must be obtained from the Regional Administrator to acquire
grant-eligible land prior to Step 3 award. A satisfactory argument for early
purchase can usually be based on an anticipated increase in land cost and on
difficulty in obtaining assurances that the land will remain available.
Eminent Domain:
The grantee should determine whether it has eminent domain authority before
proceeding with an alternative requiring land acquisition. The State attorney
general's (AG) office can be consulted for this determination and may handle any
required action.
The A6 can also advise on time required to complete any condemnation action,
whether the State has quick-take enabling legislation, whether the magnitude of
the project or other considerations indicate that project-specific quick-take
legislation should be considered an how complicated these procedures would be.
Relocation:
Title II of P.L. 91-646, Uniform Relocation Assistance, contains specific
provisions regarding the Federal share for moving and related expenses, replace-
ment housing payments, and relocation assistance advisory services. Title II
G-3
-------
applies if a person is displaced as a result of a Federally assisted project
(40 CFR 4.103, for the determination of displaced persons). The Federal and
State offices previously discussed work with relocation under this Act and can
provide necessary guidance. Relocation eligibility and payments should be
determined by or in consultation with experienced relocation personnel. The
grantee is expected to provide relocation assistance in a timely fashion in order
to allow expeditious land acquisition.
Alternatives to Acquisition:
It is advisable to explore leasing or other arrangements for land application
as alternatives to fee-simple acquisition. Some farmers may be willing to take
effluent or sludge at nominal cost or no cost, or even provide payment for
wastewater for irrigation.
Site Selection:
It is essential to complete all studies required to establish the suitability
of the contemplated site before any acquisition actions are taken. If condemna-
tion is anticipated, a court order may be required to complete these studies. If
the city's attorney is not familiar with condemnation procedures, the State AG's
office can usually provide advice or handle any required action.
Records;
Grantees should maintain all of the requisite land acquisition background
information and documents in a readily accessible form.
G-4
-------
APPENDIX H
WET WELL AND
DRY WELL CLASSIFICATION
-------
APPENDIX H
PROCEDURE FOR THE ELIMINATION OR MINIMIZATION
OF EXPLOSION RELATED PROBLEMS
The following guidance contains good engineering practices. Since
it is not the intent of this guidance to modify or replace any
appropriate safety requirements and regulations published by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA), it is recommended that the
guidelines be used to supplement these and other appropriate safety
requirements and codes.
I. Classification of Wet Wells and Dry Wells for Sewage Lift Stations
A. Wet wells and dry wells for sewage lift stations should be
classified in accordance with article 500 of the National
Electric Code (NEC)* as found in NFPA publication 70.
Classification is based principally on whether a flammable
mixture may be present: (a) under normal operating
conditions; or (b) only under abnormal operating conditions or
equipment breakdown (including lifting of submersible
equipment for inspection, maintenance or repair). The
classification of wet wells and dry wells for sewage lift
stations must be site specific and established by
investigation of the conditions for each installation.
1. Wet Wells; Wet wells should be classified on a
case-by-case basis depending on design, type, and
intended use. Guidance for classification of wet wells
is presented in Figure I. The following definitions
can be used in classifying wet wells:
(a) Wet Well: A wet well is a below ground structure
designed to accept and temporarily store wastewater
for the purpose of pumping. A wet well may or may
not contain electrical equipment such as pumps,
motors, wiring and wiring devices, controls, light
and other accessories.
(b) High Hazard Wet Well: A wet well which can be
expected to receive significant inflow of flammable
liquids including all wet wells serving combined
sewer systems or serving separate sewer systems that
receive flow from industrial sources or those
commercial sources such as paint or hardware stores
which regularly handle large quantities of volatile
or flammable liquids.
*A11 references to NEC found in this guidance means publication No. 70 -
1984 edition published by the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA)
H-l
-------
(c) Low Hazard Wet Well: A wet well not reasonably
expected to receive significant inflow of flaninable
liquids. This includes wet wells serving separated
sewer systems for primarily residential sources
and/or those commercial sources not handling large
quantities of volatile or flammable liquids.
(d) Closed Wet Well: A wet well lacking natural or
mechanical ventilation as defined below.
(e) Naturally Ventilated Wet Well: A wet well built
with at least one ventilator designed to effectively
utilize wind pressure and/or thermal convection to
remove gas from the wet well.
(f) Mechanically Ventilated Wet Well: A wet well
equipped with continuously or intermittent (time
clock) operating mechanical ventilation (totally
isolated from the dry well ventilation) providing at
least 10 air changes per hour and equipped with
failure alarm. Intermittent operations must have a
minimum of four (4) operations per hour.
FIGURE I
WET WELL CLASSIFICATION
TYPE WITHOUT VENTILATION* NATURAL VENTILATION MECHANICAL VENTILATION
High
Hazard Class 1 - Division 1 Class 1 - Division 1 Class 1 - Division 2
Wet Well
Low Class 1 - Division 1 Class 1 - Division 2 Class 1 - Division 2
Hazard
* Not permitted in most States
2. All electrical equipment in the wet well should comply
with Article 501 of the NEC for Class 1 - Division 1 or 2
locations as shown in Figure I. This includes pumps,
motors, controls and control wiring, lights, power wiring
and wiring devices and other accessories.
H-2
-------
3. Submersible equipment used in wet well classified as
Division 1 should be either explosion-proof or meet one
of the four (4) conditions of Article 501-8(a) of the
NEC. "Guaranteed Submergence" as interpreted, by EPA,
from paragraph (4) of this Article means that under
normal operating conditions the pumping equipment is a
minimum of 6 inches below low water level at all times
when the pump is operating. Double low water cut off
switches should be used to provide additional safety in
case of level switch failure. When "guaranteed
submergence" is used, sensors to automatically
de-energize the equipment when liquids falls below a set
level should be used. Loss of submergence should, in
addition to de-energizing the motor, generate an alarm
similar to that used for high water level. The motor can
be re-energized automatically when submergence is
regained, but the alarm should require manual reset.
When "guaranteed submergence" is used in place of
explosion-proof, the pump should have double or tandem
mechanical seals with outboard seal failure detectors.
The motors should have terminal board connections which
are isolated from the motor windings by a separate O-ring
gasketed chamber or the splice caps should be completely
incapsulated in epoxy. The motor should also have
thermal sensors that limit the motor winding temperature
in accordance with Section 500-2 (b) of the NEC Code.
Additional maintenance may be required for installation
utilizing "guaranteed submergence" because of solids
accumulation which may occur in these wet wells. O&M manuals
should address any additional requirements or procedures.
4. When oil filled submersible motors are used in Division 1
or 2 locations they should be equipped with thermal
detectors designed to de-energize the equipment before
internal motor temperature reach ignition levels. Over
temperature should also generate an alarm similar to that
used for high water level. The motor can be re-energized
automatically when cooled, but the alarm should require
manual reset.
5. Submersible equipment used in wet wells classified as
Division 2 may be, but are not required to be
explosion-proof. Motors may be squirrel cage induction
motors which have no brushes, switching mechanisms or
similar arc producing devices as described in Article
501-8(b) of the NEC code.
6. Flexible cords may be permitted in Division 1 or 2
locations for submersible pumping equipment designed for
quick removal. The flexible cords should be classified
for use with portable utilization equipment and should
meet all the requirements of Article 501-11 of the NEC.
H-3
-------
Flexible cords used with submersible pumps should be
approved for extra-hard usage and should have an oil
resident outer jacket.
7. Grinder pumps, septic tank effluent pumps and other
residential pumping units associated with onsite
wastewater treatment or used to convey wastewater from
individual dwelling units or clusters are exempt from
these requirements and are not specifically covered by
this guidance. However, the guidance may be used for
onsite systems where applicable or in the absence of
other state or local guidance or requirements.
8. Non-sparking pumps and guide rail systems for submersable
equipment are not required for Division 1 or 2 locations.
When non-sparking guide rails systems are not used however,
special precaution may be required during abnormal
operating conditions. Wet well atmospheres should be
tested for explosive mixtures and forced air ventilated,
if necessary, before the pumping equipment is raised for
inspection, maintenance or repair. Any wet well alarm
signal should alert operating personnel of possible
hazardous gas conditions.
9. All wet wells classified as Division 1 locations should
be narked "Danger-Hazardous Gases". Operations and
maintenance manuals should indicate all wet well
classified as Division 1 locations and should outline
necessary normal and abnormal operating procedures.
B. Dry Wells: Dry wells should be classified on a case-by-case
basis depending on design, type and intended use. In general
dry wells may be classified one class lower than the
associated wet well. Guidance for classification of dry wells
is presented in Figure II.
1. The following definitions shall be used in classifying
dry wells:
(a) Dry Wells: A dry well is an above or below ground
structure designed to house personnel, controls or
equipment associated with pumping of wastewater.
The dry well should have no openings such as hatches
or doors, (except with gas tight seals or gaskets),
unpacked pipe sleeves, untrapped drain pipes (unless
equipped with ball valves or other dry environment
or seal device) etc., by which vapor might be
conveyed from the wet well. Dry wells should have
no open surfaces of wastewater except such channels
and sumps as are necessary to efficiently remove
seal leakage, condensation and building drainage. A
dry well may or may not contain electrical equipment
such as pumps, motors, wiring, controls lights and
associated wiring devices and other accessories.
H-4
-------
(b) High Hazard Dry Well: A drywell pumping water from
a high hazard wet well using pumps not equipped with
fresh water seal purging.
(c) Low Hazard Dry Well: Any drywell pumping from a low
hazard wet well or a dry well pumping from a high
hazard wet well using pumps equipped with fresh
water flushing of shaft packings or seals.
(d) Closed Dry Well: A dry well lacking natural or
mechanical ventilation as defined below.
(e) Naturally Ventilated Dry Well: A dry well built
with at least two widely separated ventilators
designed to effectively utilize wind pressure and/or
thermal convection to move air through the dry well.
(f) Mechanically Ventilated Dry Well: A dry well
equipped with continuously or intermittent (time
clock) operating mechanical ventilation (totally
isolated from the wet well ventilation) providing at
least 5 air changes per hour and equipped with
failure alarm similar to that provided for wet well
high level alarm. Intermittent ventilator
operations must have a minimum of four (4)
operations per hour. The dry well must also have
adequate drainage or sump pumping to remove the
maximum expected leakage from the failure of the
shaft seal or packing of any one pump.
FIGUPE II
DRY WELL CLASSIFICATION
WITHOUT VENTILATION NATURAL VENTILATION MECHANIC VEMTLATION
High
Hazard Class 1 - Division 1 Class 1 - Division 2 Unclassified
Dry Well
Low
Hazard Class 1 - Division 1 Unclassified Unclassified
Dry Well
* Not Permitted in Most States.
Note: All dry well ventilation must comply with all OSHA requirements
and all building and safety codes for personnel occupied working areas.
H-5
-------
2. All electrical equipment in dry wells should comply with
Article 501 of the NEC for Class 1 - Division I, Division
2, or unclassified locations as shown in Figure II. This
includes pumps, motors, controls and control wiring,
lights, power wiring and wiring devices and other
accessories.
3. Pumping equipment used in dry wells classified as
Division 1 should be either explosion-proof or meet one
of the four (4) conditions of Article 501-8(a) of the
NEC.
4. Pumping equipment used in dry wells classified as
Division 2 may be, but is not required to be explosion
proof. Motors may be open enclosed motors, such as
squirrel-cage induction motors without brushes, switching
mechanisms or similar arc producing devices in accordance
with Article 501-8(b) of the NEC. Other types of motors
and controls may also be used in Division 2 locations as
also described in this article.
5. Flexible cords should not be used in dry wells classified
as Division 1 or Division 2 except as specified by the
NEC.
6. Non-sparking pumps and accessories may be used, but are
not required for Division 1 or Division 2 dry wells.
7. In case of dry well ventilator failure alarm, the
atmospheres should be tested for explosive mixture before
entering the dry well and/or before any electrical
equipment including non-explosion proof lights are
energized. Continuous/volatile hydrocarbon analysers are
recommended for all dry wells.
8. O&M manuals should indicate all dry wells classified as
Division 1 locations and should outline necessary normal
and abnormal operating procedures.
C. Explosion-Proof Equipment: Explosion-proof equipment means
any equipment acceptable under the following conditions:
1. If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled,
or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally
recognized testing laboratory, such as, but not limited
to, Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., and Factory Mutual
Engineering Corporation, or
H-6
-------
2. With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind
which no nationally recognized testing laboratory
accepts, certifies, lists, labels or determines to be
safe, if it is inspected or tested by a Federal agency,
or by a State, municipal, or other local authority
responsible for enforcing occupational safety provisions
of the NEC, or
3. With respect to custom-made equipment or related
installations which are designed, fabricated for, and
intended for use by, a particular customer, if it is
determined to be safe for its intended use by its
manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer
keeps and makes available for inspection to Federal,
State an/or local authorities.
II. Classification For Other Pumping Fxpoipment Installations
In general, pumping equipment and all other electrical devices
installed in other areas of a wastewater treatment plant should be
reviewed during the design phase in order to determine if any
explosion hazards may exist. It is the responsibility of the
designer to evaluate these spaces under the rules outlined in NFPA
documents 70, 70C and 497 and API document KP500A for electrical
equipment classification. Pumping installations where explosion
hazards may exist and that can not be eliminated, should be
equipped with continuous/volatile hydrocarbon analysers with
appropriate alarms.
III. Explosion Hazards From Volatile Compounds
All sewer use ordinance should include a clause that prohibits
the discharge of volatile or flammable compounds that may cause
explosion hazards. Experience has demonstrated, however, that in
spite of sewer use ordinances, illegal discharges or accidental
spills occur. Therefore, specific contingency plans are encouraged
for all pumping stations serving sewer systems where volatile
compounds may be discharged accidentally or illegally.
H-7
-------
APPENDIX I
CONSTRUCTION INCENTIVE CLAUSE
-------
APPENDIX I
CONSTRUCTION INCENTIVE CLAUSE
THE EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
I. Purpose
This clause defines a "construction incentive change proposal" (CICP) and
establishes the policy and procedures for the application of CICPs in the
construction grant process of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
construction grants program.
II. CICP
A. Definition: A CICP is a formally written proposal for a change order
during the construction of a wastewater treatment project funded under
the EPA construction grants program. A CICP must be initiated,
developed, and identified as such by the contractor or subcontractor.
A CICP must result in a gross capital saving of $50,000 or more.
A CICP must result in a net capital cost reduction while causing no
increase in the total life cycle cost of the project and meeting the
following conditions.
1. The required function, reliability, and safety of the project will be
maintained.
2. The proposed change will not result in any contract rebidding.
3. The proposed change must be in compliance with Section 204(a)(6) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 which
prohibits proprietary and restrictive specifications for bids in
connection with construction grant projects.
4. The proposed change will not cause undue interruption of the contract
work.
5. The proposed change must be in compliance with local permits and
regulations.
B. Applicability: All contracts for the construction of wastewater treat-
ment projects funded under the EPA construction grants program.
C. Content: A CICP must contain pertinent information and supporting
documents for evaluation by the involved contracting authority. As a
minimum, the following information should be included.
1. Name of individuals associated with the development and preparation
of the CICP.
1-1
-------
2. A detailed description with duly signed plans and specifications of
the present design and the proposed changes. Clear identification of
any advantages and disadvantages for each change.
3. A detailed procedure and schedule for implementing the proposed
change. This should include all necessary contract amendments
and the latest date the CICP must be approved for implementation.
4. A summary of estimated costs to include the following:
a. project construction costs before and after the CICP. This
should be a detailed estimate identifying the following items for
each trade involved in the CICP.
1. quantities of materials and equipment
2. unit prices of materials and equipment
3. labor hours and rates for installation
4. subcontractor and prime contractor mark-ups
b. operation and maintenance costs before and after the CICP;
c. costs for implementing the CICP not included in item 4a above;
d. contractor's share of the savings based on paragraph III below;
e. other data as required the construction grants regulations for
change orders (40 CFR Part 33 and Part 35).
f. time required for executing the proposed change.
To the extent indicated below, contractors may restrict the EPA's and the
project owner's use of any construction incentive change proposal or the
supporting data submitted pursuant to this program. Suggested wording for
inclusion in CICPs is provided below:
"This data furnished pursuant to the construction incentive clause of
contract shall not be disclosed beyond that which is
necessary to accomplish the review, or duplicated, used, or
disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than to
evaluate change proposals submitted under said clause. This
restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information
contained in this data if it is or has been obtained, or is
otherwise available, from the contractor, or from another source,
without limitations. If such a proposal is accepted by the owner
under said contract after the use of this data in such an evalua-
tion, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
project owner shall have the right to duplicate, use, and disclose
any data reasonably necessary to the full utilization of such
proposal as accepted, in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever,
and have others do also."
1-2
-------
The grantee may, subject to approval by the State and EPA, modify, accept, or
reject the CICP. However, if a CICP is modified or is not acted upon within the
time frame specified in the CICP, the contractor may withdraw, in part or in
whole, the CICP. In any event, the grantee will not be liable for the cost of
developing the CICP withdrawn or rejected.
When a CICP is accepted by the grantee, the processing procedure for change
orders should be used and approval of the CICP by the State and EPA is required.
When a CIP is rejected, the contractor may not appeal to EPA.
III. Sharing Provisions
Construction Cost Sharing
Upon acceptance of a CICP, the contractor will share the net capital savings
pursuant to this contract based on the formula below. Computation for the net
savings is to be based on the following formula:
Net capital savings = (Initial construction cost - revised
construction cost) - (CICP development
cost + CICP implementation cost)
The CICP implementation cost should include, when appropriate, consultant's
fee for reviewing and redesigning the changes. However, costs for processing the
CICP incurred by the grantee, State and EPA are excluded.
The contractor's cost for developing the CICP is limited to that directly
associated with the preparation of the CICP package. When approved, such
costs will be reimbursed to the contractor. However, any costs which cannot
be satisfactorily substantiated will be rejected and will not be subject to
reimbursement.
Sharing Formula
a. When the total cumulative net savings based on the computation above is
$1 million or less, the contractor will receive 50 percent of the saving.
b. When the total cumulative net savings exceed $1 million, the contractor's
share will be computed based on the following formula:
y = .2x + 300,000
where:
y = contractor's share in dollars
x = total net saving in dollars
For example, if the total net saving is $3,572,000
y = .2($3,572,000) + 300,000 = $1,014,400
1-3
-------
APPENDIX J
EPA PROJECT SIGN
-------
1 I
!«• r
HIGH DENSITY OVERLAID PLYWOOD > o m
5OVED MATERIAL SUITABLE FOR SIGNS /7
//
E<
o: *
2£
a i-
ul O
K
x a
UJ O
CENTER P
•
\
'
LEFT
THE
PROV
->
4*
i
LINE 1
CENTER LINE MITER EDGE AT ALL CORNERS^-^
1 ^J
t •-= = = = = — ~ ~ *•**• — = — = = ~ ~ *~ — *~ ~ -
-vv^^ ST^*.
BA<~K(-:qr>iiMri Ann AI i OTnf a \y^ ^<5\-_ .„, Blue Nn ISlt"
SIGN COMPONLNTS NO! DtSIGNATED f^ ^tf^^k 1^
OPPORTUNITY PROJECT "^ " " " ^>' L'9ht 9'een M'X * ^ ^ l J"," '°
> POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT ~?~~"°~1^
S ,~^*^ ~" limn
PROJECT NUMBER C 011234 03
Environmental Protection for Fairfax County — N'oack17038
New 1.5 Million Dollar Waste Treatment Works
$ Federal Dollars $ State Dollars
£ 4 4
1
V
A
j
* H
BORDER SHALL BE DETERMINLD USING PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORTS FOR SIGN AS SITE CONDITIONS
IDING EQUAL BORDERS PREVAILING GRADE TO PERMIT PUBLIC VIEWING
/—GRADE
P X^EASE ALL EDGES ^ !L *-
%, T COLOR NUMBERS REFER TO FEDERAL COLOR STANDARD NO. 595a (l-«8) WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM GSA SUPPLIES.
f^ 7 PROJECT SIGN DETAILS
^^ *• INVIRONMiNTAL PROTfCTION AGINCT
-------
APPENDIX K
FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT
CAPABILITY INFORMATION SHEET
-------
GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY
ON FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY
FOR PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Introduction
The decision to construct a wastewater treatment facility represents a
major financial commitment by a local government. Consequently, there is a
need for each construction grant applicant to determine prior to actual
construction whether the community and its residents have the financial and
institutional capability to pay for and manage the proposed system. This need
has been clearly recognized by the Policy on Financial and Management
Capability for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Systems.rne Policy
implements the financial capability demonstration requirement contained in the
Clean Water Act and the revised construction grants regulations. The Policy
sets forth a series of five questions that all grant applicants must answer in
order to demonstrate their financial capability.
The Policy also outlines the responsibilities of the grant applicant, the
States and the Regional Offices. In order to assist these three major
participants in implementing the Policy effectively, several guidance
documents have been developed and are now available. These documents include:
o The Financial Capability Guidebook
o The Financial Capability Summary Foldout
o Suggested Screening System Elements
o The Reviewer's Checklist
o Analysis for Correcting High Cost Projects
These documents are described below following a summary of the Financial
and Management Capability Policy itself. Copies of the Suggested Screening •
System Elements, the Reviewer's Checklist, and the Analysis for Correcting
High Cost Projects is attached to this document (Attachments A, B and C,
respectively). The Financial Capability Guidebook and Summary Foldout can be
obtained from the EPA Regional Offices. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship
of the guidance materials to the Policy.
Financial and Management Capability Policy
The policy on financial and management capability requires that grant
applicants demonstrate their financial and management capability to construct,
operate and maintain a wastewater treatment system before receiving
construction grant assistance.
The financial capability analysis necessary to support the required
demonstration must answer Five Basic Questions and the answers must be
reviewed by the State before recommending grant assistance. The questions are:
o What is proposed in the facilities plan?
o What roles and responsibilities will local government have?
-------
o How much will the facilities cost at today's prices?
o How will construction and operation of the facilities be financed?
o What are the annual costs per household?
Although the demonstration may be presented in any format, a series of
Wastewater Facilities Financial Information Sheets are presented with the
Policy as an example of how the information required to demonstrate financial
capability might be displayed. Other examples of formats which may be used
include a financial plan, a separate chapter in the facilities plan, or
procedures as prescribed by a delegated State, provided that the five basic
questions contained in the Policy are adequately addressed.
In addition to providing answers to these questions, the applicant must
consider the community's financial condition and must certify in writing that
it has the necessary financial capability to construct, own and operate the
treatment system. A sample letter of certification is attached to the Policy.
Applicants proposing to construct a facility to serve two or more
jurisdictions must submit an executed intermunicipal service agreement that
shows how costs will be allocated among the participating jurisdictions. This
requirement may, however, be waived by the Regional Administrator or delegated
State under certain circumstances.
Although all financial capability demonstrations should be reviewed using
the Reviewer's Checklist, the level of detail required in the review by the
State (or Region) depends on how likely the project is to have financial
problems. The Policy requires that States develop screening procedures for
identifying communities whose projects need greater attention due to their
high cost, possible technological inappropriateness, or potential financial
impacts. This "first cut" determination of a project's potential for being
high cost is to be done using a simple screening system and should help State
reviewers to focus their attention on the most critical projects. The
Suggested Screening System Elements and the Reviewer's Checklist are described
in greater detail later in.this guidance.
For the financial capability policy to be effective, it is essential that
problem projects be identified early enough during the planning and design
phases to accommodate readily any necessary corrective actions. The need to
consider financial and management capability early during the project
development is required by the construction grants regulations which state
that "the facilities plan will also demonstrate that the selected alternative
is implementable from legal, institutional, financial and management
standpoints."
Guidance Available to Assist in the Implementation of the Policy
The Financial Capability Guidebook
To assist grant applicants to answer the five questions contained in the
Policy, EPA has prepared the Financial Capability Guidebook which is available
from your State agency or EPA Regional Office. The Guidebook also
provides a method to evaluate the community's financial condition. The
Guidebook is structured around two basic information sheets: the Wastewater
-------
Facilities Financial Information Sheet and a Supplemental Information Sheet.
The Wastewater Facilities Financial Information Sheet provides a format that
can be used to answer the five questions. This Information Sheet is optional
and is attached to the Financial and Management Capability Policy. The
Supplemental Information Sheet is provided to assist in evaluating the
community's financial condition. Although it is not an EPA requirement to
complete this Information Sheet, communities may find it useful in evaluating
whether they could successfully finance the system or should investigate lower
cost alternatives.
The Guidebook contains several worksheets that need to be completed in
order to fill out the information sheets. Specific instructions are provided
for completing each worksheet as well as suggestions and examples of how the
necessary information may be obtained. To complete the worksheets, it may be
necessary to have the assistance of the community's financial official and
engineering consultant. The results of the analysis will not only prove
invaluable to local municipal officials charged with the decision making
responsibility for the project, but will also provide local taxpayers with
sufficient information to allow them to express their opinions based upon
factual information.
Financial Capability Summary Foldout
An abbreviated version of the Guidebook (The Financial Capability Summary
Foldout) has been developed for use by communities who do not need detailed
guidance for conducting the financial analysis necessary to answer the five
questions required by the Policy and to consider the community's financial
condition. The Summary Foldout is most suitable for situations where the
current project represents a relatively small portion of the community's total
system or where user costs are low enough that the proposed project will have
little impact on the community. The Summary Foldout follows the same
methodology as the full size Guidebook and includes a simple and brief
introduction to the system of financial analysis used in the Guidebook.
Suggested Screening System Elements
A list of elements suggested for use in screening projects to determine
which ones warrant intensive review is included in Attachment A. They are
presented to help States to develop their own screening procedure based on
local conditions. The procedure should be short, objective, and useable by
staff without financial capability experience. The screening should take
place early in the planning process and continue periodically through the
review of the Step 3 grant application. If, at any time, the project should
fail the screen, steps should be taken to initiate a detailed financial
capability review of the project before it is allowed to proceed.
At the Step 3 grant application stage the project should be subjected to
one last screening. If it passes, the Reviewer's Checklist should be used to
simply verify that the community has answered the five Policy questions. If,
however, the project fails the screen at this stage, a more intensive review
of the project should be conducted. The Reviewer's Checklist is specifically
applicable to this review. In these cases, the reviewer should use the
Checklist as a systematic approach for thoroughly evaluating whether the
-------
applicant has accurately answered the five policy questions and certified his
financial capability to construct, own and operate the system. The reviewer
should also make sure that those communities whose projects receive a more
intensive review have adequately considered the community's financial
condition.
Reviewer's Checklist
The Reviewer's Checklist (Attachment B) is intended to assist delegated
States and Regions in assuring that construction grant applicants have
adequately demonstrated their financial and management capability.
Specifically, the Checklist can be used by State and Regional project
engineers or others who have responsibility to review and evaluate an
applicant's answers to the five questions which form the basis of the
financial capability demonstration.
Format and Use: the Checklist is formulated around the five questions and
also contains a question about the Letter of Certification required in the
policy. The Checklist should be used to verify the applicant's demonstration
and to evaluate more thoroughly those projects for which the applicant may not
have the necessary financial and management capability.
Positive responses (i.e., "yes" answers are positive) to the questions in
the Checklist generally indicate that the applicant may have the required
financial and management capability. Negative responses should encourage the
reviewer to take a closer look at the application.
In using the Checklist, reviewers should use judgement in weighing the
relative importance of each question. Negative answers to many of the
questions may indicate a potentially serious problem requiring further
analysis and action. One or two negative responses related to less critical
questions or marginal shortcomings may not require further analysis. In any
case, the reviewer should use professional judgement and specific knowledge of
the applicant's situation.
Since the applicant is not required by EPA to submit its demonstration
(i.e., the answers to the five questions) in any specified format, the
reviewer may need to consult other sources of information to complete the
Checklist. Such sources include the facility plan, the environmental
assessment or finding of no significant impact, a capital improvement plan or
any available financial reports issued,by the community or local financial
institutions. These sources should be used to confirm questionable or
inconsistent data or to fill information gaps in the applicant's submission.
However, the reviewer should not do the applicant's analyses required for the
demonstration. One of the primary purposes of the policy is to encourage
communities to understand the financial impacts of their projects. Missing
information in the demonstration may indicate that the community has not
developed or reviewed the information and thus is unable to make informed
decisions.
Reviewer's Findings: If the reviewer feels that the applicant has the
financial capability, he should recommend grant award. If, however, after
using the Reviewer's Checklist, the reviewer determines that the project may
be high cost and impose too high a financial burden on the community, the
following steps are suggested:
-------
1. The community should be contacted and informed of the reviewer's
findings. Important information should be confirmed and unclear
areas questioned. Through discussions with the community and its
engineers, the reviewer should satisfy himself that he understands
the nature and extent of the problem and can identify the causes.
2. If the reviewer believes that the project is still high cost but 1)
not so expensive that it will impose a burden beyond the resources of
the community and 2) that the community is aware of the cost and
willing to undertake the commitment, the reviewer should recommend
the grant be awarded.
3. If, in the judgement of the reviewer the project is clearly too
expensive for the community's resources, action should then be taken
to modify the project such that the community can afford it. Any
action which significantly changes the project or causes delays
should be undertaken as a last resort. With limited grant funds
available and intense competition for priority, projects which must
be redesigned or changed significantly may run the risk of losing
grant funding. Guidance to assist States and grantees to chart a
course of action to correct a problem is contained in Analysis for
Correcting High Cost Projects (Attachment C).
Analysis for CorrectingHighCost Projects
The Reviewer's Checklist is useful for determining whether a particular
project is a problem relative to the community's financial and management
capability. The Checklist does not, however, identify corrective actions to
take when a problem is discovered. In many cases the causes of the problems
identified by the Reviewer's Checklist are obvious and lead directly to the
appropriate action. The Analysis for Correcting High Cost Projects
(Attachment C) was developed to assist in those cases where the appropriate
action is not readily apparent.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Suggested Screening System Elements
It is the delegated States' responsibility to establish a screening system
to identify projects that have a high probability of encountering financial
difficulties. The projects identified by this screening system must receive
very close scrutiny by State reviewers to ensure that communities have
adequately considered the financial impact of proposed projects and that the
communities have the capability to construct, own and operate the systems. If
this more intensive review discloses that the project is financially sound,
the State should recommend grant award. If, however, this review indicates
that the community may encounter financial difficulties, the State should work
with the community to explore less costly alternatives, seek additional
funding from other sources, revise the financing or revise the scope of the
project.
The screening system used by the State may be based on qualitative
characteristics about the grant applicant or quantitative indicators about the
project cost. Some suggested indicators are:
o Size of Community - In general most high cost problems occur in smaller
towns which have fewer resources, are less densely populated and
consequently are unable to take advantage of economies of scale associated
with larger wastewater systems. Thus, all projects for communities under
a certain size (e.g., 10,000, 3,500 or another number devised by the State
based on local experience).could be identified by the screen.
o Extent of Sewers - Sewers often drive up the cost of otherwise sound
projects. All projects installing sewers for the first time or projects
with a high proportion of cost resulting from sewers should be looked at
more closely.
o Type of Technology Proposed - Projects with expensive and sophisticated
operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements for relatively small
communities should be identified for a more detailed investigation.
Technologies such as activated sludge, physical-chemical treatment or any
of a number of advanced treatment technologies for small communities tend
to be operationally complex and costly.
o Capital Cost Per Household - National figures indicate that new projects
for which the total capital cost per household exceeds $6,000 are
generally high cost. The figure for communities with some existing sewer
service is $4,000. These figures are for total cost, exclusive of outside
funding. States may want to use values based on their own local
experience.
o Total Annual Cost Per Household - On a national basis, projects tend to be
high cost when the total annual cost per household exceeds $250. States
may want to change this figure based on reduced Federal share and on local
economic conditions.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Reviewer's Checklist
I. What is proposed In the facility plan?
o Is the project described in the grant consistent with the facilities
plan and/or the FONSI?
o If the project is for a community with population under 10,OOOi/» is
the selected alternative appropriate?-/
o Have the basic assumptions in the facility plan concerning either
population growth or economic base remained the same or have they
been updated?
II. What roles and responsibilities will local governments have?
o If an Intergovernmental Service Agreement is required, has it been
executed and is it current? Has the requirement been waived?
o Does the agreement contain 1) the basis upon which costs are
allocated, the formula by which costs are allocated and the manner in
which the cost allocation system will be administered and 2)
provisions for a cost-accounting system to assure auditability of
regional operations and costs?
o Has the applicant executed agreements for large users?
o Has the management agency(ies) stated clearly the roles and
responsibilities it will undertake in financing, constructing,
operating and maintaining the proposed facilities?
III. How much will the facilities cost at today's prices?
o Are the engineer's cost estimates complete and in current prices?
o Does the cost estimate include all future projects including future
segments or phases necessary to complete the wastewater treatment
system?
I/ Experience indicates that problems associated with high cost project are
generally confined to communities with populations under 10,000. Thus,
the 10,000 population figure is a reasonable cut-off point for certain
questions even though small communities are defined in the construction
grant regulations as having less than a 3,500 population or dispersed
portions of larger communities.
y Appropriate technology as used in the Checklist is the least cost system
that the community has the means to build, operate and maintain and that
provides adequate wastewater treatment.
-------
o Total Annual Cost Per Household as a Percentage of Median Income -
National values previously used are:
1.0% if median income is less than $10,000
1.5% if median income is between $10,000-$17,000
1.75% if median income is more than $17,000
States are encouraged to develop figures better matched to local economic
conditions. States may also want to expand this indicator and look at the
financial impact of the project on low income users by looking at the cost
as a percent of the bottom quartile of income or a certain range of income
levels rather than the median income.
o Capital Cost of Treatment Per 1000 Gallons Per Day of Capacity - When the
cost of building a treatment facility exceeds $3,000 per 1,000 gallons
capacity, the technology proposed may be inappropriate.
o Annual Operation, Maintenance and Replacement (0,M&R) Cost Per Household -
When the O.M&R for a project exceeds $100 per household, the treatment
technology selected may be too complex for the community. Unlike capital
cost, O.M&R will increase in the future as labor, materials and energy
costs increase. If O.M&R costs are high initially, the system is starting
at a disadvantage.
o Size of Project Relative to Existing Facilities - If the increase in
household cost of an upgrade or expansion is less than 20% of the existing
household cost, the project may not need a more intensive review.
o Reasonableness of Projected Population Growth - If the projected annual
rate of growth is over two times the historical annual rate of growth
based on available Federal or local census or other reliable sources, the
project may need a more intensive review.
The State should develop a screening system as soon as possible using a
combination of the above screening elements or any other the State feels will
allow it to target its efforts at reviewing potentially high cost projects.
The screen can be applied at appropriate review points (e.g., review of the
FONSI, facility plan, or final design). The earlier a project is identified
as high cost, the easier it is to correct.
-------
Figure 1
Guidance Material for Implementing the Policy
on Financial and Management Capability
for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Systems
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS REGULATIONS
| FINANCIAL CAPABILITY POLICY \
_L
GUIDANCE
FOR
GRANT APPLICANTS
STATE AND REGIONAL REVIEWERS
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY GUIDEBOOK
SUGGESTED SCREENING
SYSTEM ELEMENTS
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY SUMMARY FOLDOUT - REVIEWER'S CHECKLIST
LESS COSTLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR
YOUR TOWN I/
ANALYSIS FOR CORRECTING
HIGH COST PROJECTS
I/ Available from the Facility Requirements Division (WH-595) USEPA
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
2
IV. How will the construction and operation of the facilities be financed?
o Has the grant applicant presented a realistic plan for financing the
local cost of the facilities?
- Is the local share of the costs accurately estimated?
- Have existing and future EPA grants been correctly estimated in
terms of the future reduction in the Federal share and restricted
eligibilities?
- If Farmer's Home Administration, regional commissions, State loans
or other financing programs are being used, are the negotiations
essentially complete and the terms realistic in view of the current
lending practices of these institutions?
- Is the estimated interest rate and maturity of the bonds realistic
in view of the community's bond rating and the current bond market?
- Is the term of maturity of the bonds realistic in view of the
community's ability to pay (generally greater than 15 years unless
refinancing is planned)?
o If segments are scheduled for funding beyond FY 1986, has the
applicant shown how it would proceed to complete the project without
Federal construction grant funds?
o Will revenues provided by the initial customers be sufficient to
cover the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement and debt
service?
V. What is the annual cost per household?
o What will be the total system annual cost per household based on the
current number of users in .the service area? $ /year.
o What is the current annual cost per household? $ /year.
o Has the estimated total annual cost per household including one-time
fees been presented to the community?
Letter of Certification
o Has the letter of certification as required by the policy been signed
by the applicant?
-------
ATTACHMENT C
Analysis for Correcting High Cost Projects
Once a State (or Regional) reviewer determines that a project is beyond
the financial and/or managerial capability of the grantee, it will be
necessary to modify the alternative or the financing arrangements and develop
another alternative that is financially sound. Below is a list of specific
actions which have been taken in the past to correct problem projects.
I. Restructure Financing
- Extend bond life:
By extending the term of a bond issue, the yearly payments will be
reduced. In general, bonds should be issued for as long as possible
commensurate with the expected actual life of the project.
- Pursue other funding sources:
In addition to grants available from EPA, the Departments of
Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development and other Federal
agencies may have funds available for constructing wastewater
treatment systems.
- Reduce high up-front costs:
If the initial hook-up or connection costs are too high they can be
reduced by several methods. One would be to include them in the bond
issue which amortizes their cost over the life of the bond. House
laterals, for example, which are normally the users' responsibility,
may be financed through the authority's bonds. Payments can then be
included on the user's sewer bill. (Generally, a lien is placed on
the property until the "loan" is paid.) Other methods for reducing
high up-front costs include use of short term, no or low interest
loans from local banks or local authorities; and extended pay off as
part of user charges.
- Use innovative financing:
Through the use of innovative financing methods, the cost of
financing the local share may be reduced significantly. There are
various financing programs available in States to assist in financing
wastewater treatment facilities. The following methods should be
investigated to determine if they are available in your State.
o revolving loan programs administered by the State (initial seed
money obtained through State appropriation or sale of bonds)
o State backing of local bonds to reduce the interest rate (also
called credit enhancement)
-------
o State bond bank - where a State issues one bond to cover many
local projects
o issuance of small (e.g., $500) tax exempt bonds for local
purchase
o use of "double-barreled bonds" or "quasi revenue bonds" which
assist the grantee to obtain better bond terms or to use State
(or county) bonding authority to overcome local limits on
interest rates or total indebtedness.
o dedicated sales, mineral severance, special assessments, excise
taxes, and lottery receipts for paying local share of capital
costs
o use of contract operations, singly or in conjunction with
neighboring jurisdictions.
Information on innovative financing of wastewater treatment systems is
available. See "Creative Capital Financing: A Primer for State and Local
Governments"; Government Financial Associates, Inc. New York and "Creative
Capital Financing for State and Local Governments"; Government Finance
Research Center, 1983 Chicago.
II. Reduce Complexity and other Unnecessary Expenditures
- Share support facilities and operations with neighboring jurisdictions
Sharing of personnel, labs, maintenance equipment and supplies can
overcome the costly problems of idle staff, no discount small volume
purchasing and partially utilized facilities. Sharing in the early
stages in the life of a facility that will grow in the future can
reduce cost to the initial users.
- Scrutinize the design for cost saving measures
Many designs for small community projects reflect design standards
and safeguards that were developed for larger systems. By
eliminating items from design that are not essential to operation or
safety, significant cost savings may be realized. Examples include:
replace two lane surface roads with gravel roads wherever possible;
use block instead of brick construction; use post and chain instead
of hand rails in non-hazardous areas. (See Facility Requirements
Division Information on North Carolina's Value Determination Program
for a more complete discussion of cost saving design measures.)
III. Reduce Scope of Project
- Eliminate unnecessary sewering through sparsely populated areas
Extending sewers to outlying areas which surround a developed core is
expensive. Rehabilitating or constructing of alternative onsite
systems in remote areas may reduce costs.
-------
- Reduce facility size and stage construction
Sizing pipe or treatment plants for future growth may be too costly
for present users. Costs may be lowered by reducing plant size and
providing for future growth by means of staging or other methods.
Cost to current users can be reduced if construction is done in
stages corresponding to projected need and/or anticipated revenues.
If projected growth demand does not materialize or is slow, staging
will reduce the burden to current users. Also in some cases,
inadequate hydraulic flow caused by overdesign may increase unit
operation, maintenance and replacement costs.
- Critically evaluate water quality aspects.
IV. Make Sure That All Feasible Alternatives were Adequately Considered in
the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
For a variety of reasons the selected alternative may not be the most
cost-effective at the time of construction. If corrective measures
in categories I, II and III above have not reduced costs enough to
make the project financially sound, new alternatives should be
considered. The foremost alternative should be reconstruction and
rehabilitation of existing facilities, especially onsite systems.
Existing facilities should be abandoned only as a last resort. Sand
filters or other processes available to treat septic tank effluent
should be considered. Other alternatives include:
- Alternative sewers (pressure, small diameter gravity)
- Cluster Systems
- Trickling Filters
- Lagoons
- Sand Filters
- Overland Flow
- Oxidation Ditches or other low load aeration technologies
These technologies have proven to be less expensive particularly for
small communities. Often these technologies were not considered in
the original cost-effectiveness analysis or, if considered,
inaccurate or outdated construction and 0,M&R cost data may have been
used.
-------
Friday
February 17, 1984
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 35
Financial and Management Capability for
Construction, Operations and
Maintenance of Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Systems; Final
Policy
-------
6254
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 35
[WH-FRL-2267-5]
Financial and Management Capability
for Construction, Operation and
Maintenance of Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of final policy.
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth Agency
policy and procedures to ensure that
construction grants applicants
demonstrate their financial and
management capability to construct,
operate, and maintain (including
equipment replacement) a wastewater
treatment system. The policy describes
the statutory and regulatory
requirements for applicants to
demonstrate that they have answered
five questions concerning the total costs
of (he proposed treatment system, how
it v/ill be financed, the total annual costs
per household, and the roles and
responsibilities of local governments
involved. The demonstration must also
include a written certification by
applicants that they have analyzed the
costs and financial impacts of the
proposed facilities and that they have
the necessary financial and
management capability to complete and
successfully operate the treatment
system. The purpose of the policy is to
interpret more fully the relevant
provisions of the final construction
grants regulations and the Clean Water
Act, as amended, in order to protect
adequately the Federal investment in
the construction of publicly owned
treatment systems.
EFFECTIVE/EXPIRATION DATE: This policy
will apply to any applications received
in EPA Regional Offices after
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. It will expire on September 30,
1988.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Keith Dearth, Environmental Protection
Agency, WH-595,401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 382-7226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the information
provisions in this notice have been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), and will become
effective upon OMB approval. A notice
of that approval will be published in the
Federal Register.
Dated: December 13,1983.
Jack E. Ravan,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
The authority for this action is found
in section 204(b)(l) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended.
Financial and Management Capability
for Construction and Operation of
Publicly Owned Treatment Systems
/. Statement of Policy
It is the policy of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) that no grant
shall be awarded for the construction of
a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) unless the applicant has
demonstrated substantively to the
satisfaction of the delegated State (or
EPA for non-delegated States) that it has
the legal, institutional, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure
construction, operation and
maintenance (including equipment
replacement) of the proposed treatment
system.
//. Effective/Expiration Date
This policy will apply to any
applications received in EPA Regional
Offices after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. It will expire on
September 30,1988.
///. Background
The purpose of this policy is to
interpret more fully the relevant
provisions of the revised construction
grants regulations and the Clean Water
Act, as amended, in order to protect
adequately the Federal investment in
the construction of publicly owned
treatment works. It draws together
various statutory and regulatory
provisions pertaining to the local
financing and management of Federally
funded POTWs.
Authority
The authority for this policy on
financial capability is found in the Clean
Water Act (CWA), as amended, as well
as the revised construction grants
regulations. Specifically, each applicant
is required to demonstrate its financial
capability prior to award of a Step 3 or
2+3 grant (40 CFR 35.2104); and the
Administrator is required to determine
whether the applicant has, in fact,
shown sufficient evidence that it has the
legal, institutional, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure adequate
construction, operation and
maintenance of the proposed treatment
system (section 204(b)(l)).
Discussion
The decision to construct a
wastewater treatment facility represents
a major financial commitment by a local
government. Consequently, there is a
need for each applicant to determine
whether the community and its residents
have the financial and institutional
capability to pay for and manage the
proposed system prior to actual
construction.
This need has been clearly recognized
in the Clean Water Act, which requires
that, before awarding a grant, the
Administrator must be satisfied that a
grantee has the adequate legal,
institutional, managerial, and financial
capability to complete and maintain the
proposed wastewater system. This was
further strengthened with the 1981
Amendments, which state that the
Administrator should encourage and
assist all applicants for grant assistance
to develop a capital financing plan. The
clear intent, therefore, is that all
applicants need to assess adequately
the financial impact of the proposed
facility on the community and its users,
and to disclose how the system will be
financed and managed following
construction.
TV. Application
This policy will apply to all applicants
for a Step 3 or 2 + 3 grant award under
the Amendments to Title II of the Clean
Water Act and the revised costruction
grants regulations.
V. Implementation
At the time of application for a Step 3
or 2+3 grant award, an applicant must
demonstrate that it has the legal,
institutional, managerial, and financial
capability to construct, operate, and
maintain the proposed facility. To do so,
the applicant must answer the following
questions:
1. What is proposed in the facilities
plan?
2. What roles and responsibilities will
local governments have?
3. How much will the facilities cost at
today's prices?
4. How will construction, operation
and maintenance of the facilities be
financed?
5. What are the annual costs per
household?
Attachment A * provides a format that
the applicant may use to respond to the
above questions.
The applicant must also submit, along
with the Step 3 or 2 + 3 application,
written certification that it has analyzed
the costs and financial impacts of the
proposed facilities and that it has the
capability to finance and manage the
construction and operation of the
facilities in accordance with the
1 Attachment A has been provided as an example
of how the information required to demonstrate
financial capability might be displayed. The grant
applicant may use any format he chooses to meet
the requirement, including, as examples, a financial
plan, a separate chapter in the facilities plan, or
procedures as prescribed by a delegated State,
provided that the information required is
adequately addressed. A publication entitled
Continued
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
6255
construction grants regulations. Before
signing the certification the applicant
must consider the responses to the
questions above as well as the
community's financial condition. The
certification should be signed by an
elected official or chief financial officer
for the municipality authorized to
commit funding. An example
certification letter is provided in
Attachment B.
An applicant proposing to construct a
wastewater treatment-facility designed
to serve two or more public agencies or
jurisdictions must show how the costs
will be allocated among the
participating jurisdictions or agencies.
Such applicants must provide an
executed intermunicipal service
agreement which, at a minimum,
incorporates the following information:
the basis upon which costs are
allocated; * the formula by which costs
are allocated; and the manner in which
the cost allocation system will be
administered. Executed intermunicipal
service agreements are to be submitted
with a Step 3 grant application or before
initiation of procurement action for
building the project for Step 2+3 grants:
This requirement may be waived by the
Regional Administrator or the delegated
State if the applicant can demonstrate:
that such an agreement is already in
place, or that there is evidence of a
service relationship in the absence of
formal agreement, and that the supplier
agency exhibits sufficient financial
strength to continue the project if one or
more of the customer agencies fails to
participate (40 CFR 35.2107).
The intermunicipal service agreement
serves as the legal, contractual basis for
implementation of the wastewater
treatment system, and guarantees future
commitments. Although it will guard
against reneging or unilateral actions by
participants, it should also serve as a
basis for a sound working relationship.
Its institutional provisions should
provide for a management framework,
and should assign roles and
responsibilities for management and
operation of the sys'tem.
Financial Capability Guidebook is available to
assist communities in completing Attachment A or
in developing comparable information.
2The regional cost basis consists of facilities
(including equipment, sewage treatment facilities,
and interceptors, etc.) and services (administrative,
managerial, legal, etc.) which are to be shared by
two or more jurisdictions and are, therefore, eligible
for regional cost allocation. An auditable cost
accounting system is usually maintained by the
supplier agency: it defines the regional cost basis
and is included in service agreements. Attachment
C provides elements to consider in determining
regional cost basis, and is excerpted from
"Financial Planning for Wastewater Facilities: A
Guide for Wyoming Local Officials" (Part 3).
In implementing this policy, States,
EPA Regions, and EPA Headquarters
have the following responsibilities:
• All States: In order to account for
unique aspects of State laws governing
local financing and institutional
arrangements, all States are encouraged
to develop specific guidance and
procedures for communities to use to
demonstrate their financial capability.
Attachment A may be used as the basis
for this guidance, and may be modified
according to individual State needs.
• Delegated States: At the time of
transmittal of a Step 3 or 2+3 grant
application, a delegated State must
indicate that it has reviewed the
financial information provided by the
applicant, and has determined that the
applicant has adequately demonstrated
its financial capability, and, as
appropriate, has provided an executed
intermunicipal agreement. Delegated
States may waive the requirement for an
executed intermunicipal agreement on
the basis of the criteria cited above.
The criteria for approving the
financial capability portion of a grant
application are listed below ("Regional
Offices"). States should use the
reviewer's checklist guidance provided
by EPA or develop comparable guidance
for applying these criteria to financial
capability demonstrations.
Delegated States must also develop
screening procedures for identifying
communities whose projects need
greater attention to satisfy the
requirements of this policy. These
projects could be identified on the basis
of their high cost, technological
appropriateness or potential financial
impact. A combination of several of the
following criteria should be used for this
purpose: size of the community, extent
of sewers (for presently unsewered
communities), type of technology
proposed, total capital costs per
household,,total annual household costs,
total annual cost per household as a
percentage of median income, capital
cost of treatment perTOOO gpd capacity,
or other meaningful indicators.
Delegated States should conduct a
more intensive review of projects
identified by these procedures and
should not certify grant applications for
these projects unless the State is
completely satisfied that the community
and its users can successfully finance
and manage the wastewater treatment
system. If this intensive review discloses
that the project may not be financially
sound, the State should provide
assistance to the applicant to resolve
the problem. This assistance should
include both the technical aspects of
projects (e.g., appropriate technology
and project scope and staging) and the
necessary financial arrangements (e.g.,
other sources of funding and alternative
methods for financing the local share.)
Screening procedures should be applied
as early as is feasible during the
development of a project so that
problems can be resolved prior to the
actual grant application.
• Nondelegated States: Nondelegated
States are encouraged to meet with
communities to review local financial
capability, as well as the overall
feasibility of implementing proposed
projects from financial and institutional
aspects.
• Regional Offices: In the case of non-
delegated States, the EPA Regional
Office will review the applications as
outlined under "Delegated States."
The RA or delegated State
representative may approve an
application if all other regulatory
requirements are met and if, in his or her
judgment, the applicant has adequately
demonstrated financial capability by
submission of financial information
consistent with relevant information in
the facility plan; appropriate
assumptions regarding population
projections, cost estimates, or eligible
costs; appropriate analysis of the
community's proposed financing system,
and the financial impacts of the
proposed system on its users; and
submission of an executed
intermunicipal service agreement if
there are two or more participating
jurisdictions, except as prescribed
above.
If approval is withheld, the RA or
delegated State representative will
notify the applicant of the reason(s) and
will work with the applicant to resolve
any identified problems or deficiencies.
• Headquarters: EPA Headquarters
will provide guidance and technical
assistance to Regions and to States to
carry out the intent of this policy.
VI. Overview
Each fiscal year, the EPA Regions and
States develop an overview progam
consistent with the section 205(g)
regulation. These overview programs
should provide for the Region's review
of all guidance and procedures used by
delegated States to implement this
policy, as well as a random sample of
financial capability demonstrations that
have been accepted by the State. The
overview program should provide for
the Region's review .of financial
capability demonstrations for specific,
selected projects that warrant special
attention or are determined to be of
overriding Federal interest consistent
with the section 205(g) regulation.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
6256
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17,1984 / Rules and Regulations
Attachment A (to Policy Statement)
Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet
Applicant
Nam*
Address.
City
Zlo
Contact.
Telephone.
(This is provided for optional use by the grantee community, or its A-E
consultant, as an aid to conventional Facility planning financial analyses.
EPA developed this improved and simplified form with the Municipal
Financial Officers Assn., based on feedback on earlier versions, which
have been used successfully by consultants for projects In Texas, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Pensyhrania.)
(Information to complete this sheet should be contained in the Facility
Plan.)
Additional assistance in completing the Financial Information Sheet
can be found in the Financial Capability Guidebook which is available
from the US Department of Commerce, National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) S28S Port Royal Road Springield. VA 22161
(This Sheet and the Guidebook will also be provided to grant applicants
(to assist in facility planning) by EPA Regions & delegated States in th*
application package.)
What Is Proposed In The Facilities Plan? (Information should be in Facility Plan.)
• The proposed facilities Will b«:
{[check more than one If applicable)
D New
An expansion
An upgrade
• llf treatment facilities are proposed, do they
feature low 0+M Cost Technology such as ponds,
trickling filters, overland flow? If yes, please identify.
D Yes
D No
• The facilities will serve:
Indicate the approximate percentage
of the plant's capacity that will be
allocated to each.
D Existing
Population
on Sewers
D Existing Area
Served by
On-Slte
Systems
Q Existing
Industries
D Anticipated
Growth
e Entitles to be served:
D County
D Municipality G Sewer district D Industry
e Design population
(Year.
THIS IS A SAMPLE FORMAT
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17,1984 / Rules and Regulations
6257
Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet
What Roles And Responsibilities Will Local Governments Have? (Information in Facility Plan.)
Cooperative arrangements between various entities may be required to meet the management needs of wastewster treatment facilities.
• What agency wilt
• Will there be financial contributions by:
• Have participating agencies been ssked
to review.
• Hsve agreementa been sought between
the operating agency and:
D Own the facilities
Q Other sgencies
Q Wsstewster
fscitltles plan
Q Participating
agencies
D Operste
Finance
Q Industry
O Population
projections
Q Other agencies
Service area
boundaries
Q Industry
How Much Will The Facilities Cost At Today's Prices? (Information in Facility Plan.)
The following figures sre estimated costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facilities. Dollar amounts era
unlnflsted and reflect today's prices.
A. Construction costs estimate
• Wastewster treatment plant
• Pump stations
• Interceptor sewers
• Collection sewers
• On-slto systems
• Land acquisition
• Other
• Totsl construction costs
B. Estimated annual operation, maintenance, and replscement
(O,M + P.) costs for the proposed fscllltles
• Labor
• Utilities
• Materials
• Outside services
• Misc. expenses
• Equipment replacement
• Total operation,
mslntenance and
replacement costs
How Will The Facilities Be Financed? (Information in Facility Plan.)
per yesr
per yesr
per year
per year
per year
per yesr
per yesr
A. Amount to be borrowed
• Grsntee share of construction i
• Construction-related costs
• Grantee contributions
• Amount to be borrowed
B. Methods of financing the amount to be borrowed
Financing
method
General
obligation
bond
Revenue
bond
Loan
Total
Amount
borrowed
Interest
rste
Term of
maturity
Annusl
debt service
psyment
C. Totsl estlmsted snnusl wsstewster facilities costs
• Net existing O.M * H
• Existing snnusl debt service
• O.M + R for proposed facilities
• Debt service for proposed facilities
• Totsl estlmsted annusl wsstewster
fscllltles costs
THIS IS A SAMPLE FORMAT
D. Sources of funding for total snnusl wssta
facilities cost*
• Sewer service charges
• Surcharge
• Special assessments and fees
— connection fee
— betterment assessments
— other _
• Trsnsfers from other funds
• Other _
• Total funding
-------
6258 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17,1984 / Rules and regulations
Wastewater Facilities Financial
Information Sheet
What Are The Annual Costs Per Household? (Information in Facility Plan)
• Total estimated annual wastewater • Total annual costs per household
facilities charges
• N onresidential share of total annual charges
• Residential share of total annual charges
• Number of households
• Annual costs per household for
~— wastewater collection and treatment
— other
Certification of Rnancial Capability
Your community must certify that it has the capability to finance and manage the proposed facility.
The answers to the preceeding questions will provide useful information regarding the cost of the
proposed facility, how it will be financed, and what this means in terms of costs to the typical
household user. In order to evaluate effectively the true impact of the proposed treatment system,
however, thi • infomation must be viewed within the overall context of the community's financial con-
dition, financial resources, legal constraints, and local public policy.
Listed below are additional elements relating to a community's overall financial condition and its abili-
ty to pay the local costs of constructing and operating the treatment system. These factors should be
considered before signing the financial and management capability certification.
• reasonableness of population projections relative to historic
trends (if new population growth is needed to help finance
the proposed system.)
• total current outstanding indebtedness
• state finance laws and legal debt limits
• historical trends in your community's revenue sources (e.g.,
changes in taxable assessed property valuation with
respect to population)
• current bond rating and its historical trend
If your community would have difficulty financing the proposed project, it should consider alternative
methods of financing to mitigate the adverse impacts, re-evaluate the project alternative and scope, or
consider staging implementation to spread out financing to future users. When certifying your project,
the community should be fully satisfied that both the users and the community as a whole have the
capability to finance and manage the facility as proposed.
THIS IS A SA MPLE FORMA T
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17,1984 / Rules and Regulations
6259
ON
NTIFICATION OF
o
—
3!
m
t—
1
£
at
LU
»—
UJ
_l
g
K-
<*
o
(J_
r—
O£
0
UJ
Q_
X
UJ
^
QJ
4-»
(1. «
,*- O*
Ol
0*0)
*J 13
2g
C
c c
« "
Si
££-«
cr>.— *j
01 a. -0
f£ n j-i
c c
1- t-
CO CO
a>
C >,4-> •
JT 4-> «3 L.
0-^ +J Z
J-
. >,>> «J
i. c c at
£ « 0
** O t3
Of C
II*. ^» W» «
irt O.-M C
at •*- •— c *o
£ 0 3 «
^SS6! ^
*o-^ '"•-^ -g
a> **~ * c 2 §
L. i. M o at
'"S"1 £ §"c
w» jc 3 at
*- *^ * ^ ^.P
« o» at •*-» o «
o c i_ w -F- at
O -T- * C 4-> l-
3 at 3
jr o •*-»—•*-> *— o at
M V) 4->
>^ at at at at v>
»- i- .C £ *J «0
Si- 3
•— **- at o- at
•*- o > at .c
Ot U * "O •*->
> v> c
e w> «o c at
4J -O ai -c at e
5 S u ^ o o
•*J J3 C »—
>t 4-> 3 >> Q.
**- i. o *j at
•r- Ot T3 »*- ••- t.
t, «3 JD cr
•*-» 4-> ^c a.
J3 *D C •-• O Ol
a> X 3 u
QJ "U E */* *O *O
.c at o at •»- c
•-•0 >> C •*->
Q. wi ^~ «D C
O 'r- « C -1-
t- -C C H- « *»- £
;§
1- t. >»
O O *J
i
-------
APPENDIX L
1981 AMENDMENTS TO THE
CLEAN WATER ACT
-------
APPENDIX L
1981 AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Analysis of sections of the
Construction Grants Program:
1981 amendments as related to EPA's Municipal
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Short Title
"Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981," P.L. 97-117, enacted December 29,
1981
Eligible Categories
After October 1, 1984, grants only for secondary or more
stringent treatment, or any cost effective alternative
thereto, new interceptors and appurtenances and
infiltration/inflow corrections, except
Governor of a state may elect to use not more than
20 percent of a state's allotment to fund other types of
projects previously eligible.
Grants for Steps 1 and 2
After December 29, 1981, no grants solely for facilities
planning and design (formerly Step 1 and Step 2).
Grants for construction (Step 3) shall include an
allowance for facilities planning and design based on
the percentage-of total project costs which EPA determines
is the general experience for such projects.
Each state shall use a portion of its funds, not to
exceeed 10 percent, to advance funds to potential grant
applicants for facilities planning and design; advances
are for small communities which in the judgement of the
state would be unable to complete an application (i.e.,
facilities plan and design) without such advance; the
allowance in a subsequent grant will be reduced by the
amount of the advance; if no subsequent grant, state to
seek repayment of advance under terms and conditions it
may determine.
Section 6
Capital Financing
Grant applicants are
financing plan which:
encouraged to develop a capital
L-l
-------
Section 7
Section 8
Section 9
Section 10
addresses future wastewater treatment requirements
over at least 10 years,
projects the nature, extent, timing, and cost of
the future requirements,
sets forth the manner for financing these needs.
Federal Share
After October 1, 1984, all grants are reduced to
55 percent, except subsequent segments of projects
receiving a Step 3 grant before October 1, 1984, will
receive 75 percent for all phases of such facilities,
interceptors and infiltration/inflow correction projects.
Innovative and Alternative Processes
I or A grant funding to be additional 20 percent but
in no case exceed 85 percent.
Reserve for I or A to be minimum of 4 percent and maximum
of 7-1/2 percent of annual state's allotment of which
1/2 percent must be used for innovative projects.
Extends the I and A program through FY 14.
Allows field testing of I or A processes or techniques
as a grant eligible cost.
Combined Step 2 and 3 Grants
Raises the dollar ceiling for combined Step 2+3 projects
to $8,000,000.
Reserve Capacity
After October 1, 1984, grant only for capacity needs
on date of grant award and in no case exceed needs on
October 1, 1990; grantees to pay incremental cost of
additional reserve capacity except:
Subsequent segments of projects receiving a Step 3
grant before October 1, 1984 shall be based on a
20-year reserve capacity and subsequent segments
of interceptors receiving a Step 3 grant before
December 29, 1981 shall include reserve capacity not
to exceed 40 years.
Industrial cost exclusion is eliminated.
L-2
-------
Section 11 Brand Name
When in grantee's judgement it is impractical or
uneconomical to describe technical requirements for
equipment, a brand name or equal may be used and grantee
need not establish the existence of any other source.
Section 12
Engineering Performance
Engineering services shall continue for one year after
completion of construction and include supervision of
operation, training of operating personnel, and preparing
training materials and curriculum for operating personnel,
all of which are allowable for grant participation. After
one year grantee must certify whether or not the treatment
works meets the design specifications and effluent
1 imitations.
If treatment works does not meet performance, it must
be corrected in a timely manner at other than Federal
expense.
Section 14
State Administration Grants
Section 17
State may use up to 4 percent of the State's allotment
based on the amount authorized to be appropriated or
$400,000, whichever is greater, to administer the
Construction Grants Program.
Section 15 Water Quality Management Planning
State shall use up to 1 percent of the State's allotment
or $100,000, whichever is greater, to carry out water
quality management planning.
Authorization
Section 18
Authorizes $2.4 billion
tion Grants Program.
Water Quality Priority
for FY 1982-85 for the Construc-
Projects which receive priority are those projects which,
in the estimation of the State, are designed to achieve
optimum water quality management consistent with public
health and water quality goals and requirements of the
CWA.
L-3
-------
Section 19 Cost Effectiveness
Reemphasizes that projects receiving grants shall be
the "most economical and cost-effective combination of
devices and systems ..." for waste treatment over the
life of the project.
Requires value engineering prior to grant award for all
projects which exceed $10 million and which have not
received a grant prior to December 29, 1981.
Section 20 State Certification
States with sufficient delegated authority to administer
the Construction Grants Program may certify projects to
EPA and EPA has 45 days to approve or disapprove the
project. If EPA does not act, the project is deemed
approved.
Section 21 Municipal Compliance Deadline
Municipal compliance to achieve secondary or more
stringent treatment necessary to achieve water quality
standards is extended from July 1, 1983, to July 1, 1988,
for those cases which have not been able to move ahead due
to limited Federal grant assistance.
Section 22 Ocean Discharge
Application for ocean discharges waiver extended for one
year from December 29, 1981, through new applications
cannot be approved for one year. No permit shall .allow
discharge of sludge into marine waters.
Section 23 Secondary Treatment Definition
Biological treatment facilities such as oxidation ponds,
lagoons and ditches, and trickling filters shall be
deemed to be the equivalent of secondary treatment.
Section 24 Revised Water Quality Standards
States to review, revised or promulgate new water quality
standards by December 29, 1984, or no grants may be
awarded.
Section 25 Needs Survey
EPA to prepare new needs survey by December 31, 1982.
L-4
-------
Section 26 Judicial Note
Where consent decrees have been established by the courts,
the courts are to take note of the reduced funding
levels and make appropriate adjustments if necessary in
schedules.
L-5
-------
APPENDIX M
40 CFR PART 35
FINAL REGULATIONS
-------
Friday
February 17, 1984
Part in
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 35
Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works; Final and Interim Rule
-------
6224 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday. February 17,1984 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart35
tWH-FRL 2287-5]
Grants for Construction of Treatment
Workn
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final and interim final rules.
SUMMARY: The construction grants
regulation is being published in two
places in today's Federal Register. This
portion includes, as a final rule, the
main body of the construction grant
regulation (§ 35.2000 et seq.), Appendix
B (Allowance for Facilities Planning and
Design), and Appendix C (Subpart I
Information Collection Requirements).
Appendix A (Determinations of
Allowable Costs), published together
with this final rule, is a revised interim
final rule which responds to some of the
comments received on the May 12,1982
publication of Appendix A. These
comments are described below under
Description of Major Issues. EPA is
publishing Appendix A as a revised
interim final rule for two main reasons.
First, the Congressional authorization
for the construction grants program
expires after fiscal year 1985 (September
30,1985). In anticipation of
reauthorization hearings on the Clean
Water Act in 1984, the Agency is
conducting a one-year study of the
funding of municipal was.tewater
facilities. The study will evaluate a
broad range of funding mechanisms
such as loan programs, privatization and
infrastructure banks in addition to the
present grants program. The common
goals which will be used to compare
these alternatives are greater self-
sufficiency of local communities in
addressing wastewater treatment, more
efficient targeting of Federal financial
assistance, and quicker attainment of
water quality goals. We expect to
publish a notice of the study in the
Federal Register in February. The results
of the study may result in changes to the
allowable costs described in Appendix
A. Second, the proposed rule (§ 35.2205)
is expected to elicit comments which
may extend to allowable cost items in
Appendix A.
A proposed rule published elsewhere
in today's Federal Register, would
create a new section (§ 35.2205) that
would define the maximum increase in
the allowable cost of a grant award. The
hew section would apply7 to all
construction grants regardless of the
grant award date.
This regulation includes only those
items called for by the Clean Water Act,
including the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981, and the minimum
requirements necessary for effective
program management. The changes
clarify and simplify the regulation and
thereby reduce project costs.
DATES: This regulation is effective
February 17,1984. See also the section
in the preamble on "Effective Date."
Comments on the interim final'
regulation contained in Appendix A,
must be received on or before April 17,
1984.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
addressed to: Central Docket Section
(LE131), Attention: Docket No. G-81-5,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The public may inspect the comments
received on this interim final rule at:
Central Docket Section, Gallery \ West
Tower Lobby, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C., between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Kramer, Office of Water
Program Operations (WH-595),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 382-7277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
keeping with the President's mandate to
reduce the burden of government
regulation, EPA has undertaken a
comprehensive review of the
construction grants regulation. Based on
that review, revisions to the regulation
were proposed in the November 6,1981
Federal Register and published as
interim final on May 12,1982. The
interim rule reflected extensive
experience/with the program, comments
received over the years from a broad
spectrum of the program's constituents
and comments received on the interim
rule. In developing this regulation, the
Agency consulted with a wide variety of
organizations representing various
participants in the program.
On December 29,1981, the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Construction
Grant Amendments of 1981, Pub. L. 97-
117 (1981 amendments), were signed into
law, making several basic modifications
to the grants program. This regulation,
which is built on the Administration's
commitment to reduce regulatory
burdens to a minimum while
maintaining the program's
environmental and financial integrity,
incorporates provisions to implement
the 1981 amendments and comments on
the interim rule.
This regulation includes items
required by statute—free of detailed
procedures to be followed—and those
additional minimum requirements that
EPA considers necessary for effective
program management.
In conjunction with this effort to
reduce regulatory requirements to a
minimum, EPA will issue appropriate
guidance documents. These guidance
documents will not be regulations in
disguise. The regulatory requirements
are repeated in the guidance solely for
continuity and clarity. If there appears
to be a difference between the
regulations and the guidance, the
regulations govern. The guidance
materials will contain information which
is helpful to States and grantees in
managing and carrying out the
construction grants program. Use of the
information in the guidance documents
is to be discretionary. That is, States or
grantees may, adopt other procedures
which are sufficient to meet the
requirements of this regulation.
The first major guidance document,
Facilities Planning 81 (FP 81), was
published in 1981. Its successor,
Construction Grants 82 (CG 82),
companion to the interim final
regulation, reflects and includes this
new emphasis on increased flexibility in
its guidance for planning^design, and
building. Future editions in the CG
series will continue this approach. Other
guidance publications in the areas of
operation and maintenance, financial
planning and development of user
charge systems are being developed. By
linking efforts to reduce mandatory
requirements and to provide guidance,
the greatest possible flexibility is
provided to States and local
governments to effectively carry out the
construction grants program.
Although this subpart is the primary
regulation governing the construction
grants program, it is not the only one.
Others that apply include EPA's
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act
regulation (Part 4), NEPA regulation
(Part 6), public participation regulation
(Part 25), intergovernmental review
regulation (Part 29), general grant
regulation (Part 30), debarment and
suspension regulation (Part 32),
procurement regulation (Part 33), and
pretreatment regulation (Part 403).
Rather than repeat verbatim selected
portions of these Parts, this regulation
will rely on the others and, where
appropriate, cross reference those
requirements. It is felt that this is a
simpler approach and, more helpful to
the States and grantees. Requirements
of these other Parts still apply to the
construction grants prosram.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday. February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6225
Following is a table showing the
relationship of Subpart I to Subpart E:
CONSTRUCTION GRANT REGULATION—40 CFR
PART 35
CONSTRUCTION GRANT REGULATION—40 CFR
PART 35—Continued
Subpart I
Sec
35.2000
35.2005
35.2010
35.2015
35.2020
35.2021
35.2023
35.2024
3S.2P25
35.2030
35.2032
35.2034
35.2040
35.2042
35.2060
35.2100
35.2102
35.2103
35.2104
35.2105
35.2108
35.2107
35.2106
35.2109
35.2110
35.2111.
35.2112
35.2113....,,
35.21 14.. .*
36.2116..-.,.
35.2118 „.
35.2120
35.2122
35.2123
35.2125
35.2127
35.2130
352140 . ,
35.2152..:
35.2200
352202
35.2204
35.2206
35.2208
35.2210
35.2211
35.2212
as 9914
Purpose and policy
Definitions
State priority system and
project priority Hst.
Reserves
ReaHotment of reserves....
Water quality manage-
ment pi&nning.
Combined sewer over-
flows.
Allowance and advance
of allowance.
Faculties planning
Innovative and alternative
technologies.
Privately owned individual
Systems.
Grant application
Review of grant applica-
tions.
Effect of approval or certi-
fication of documents.
LirnilAtkXiS on award
Water quality manage-
ment plans.
Priority determination
Funding and other consid-
erations.
Debarment and suspen-
sion.
Plan of operation
Intermumdpal service
agreements.
Phased or segmented
Step 2+3
Access to IndMdual sys-
Revised water quality
standards.
Marine discharge waiver
appfcants.
Environmental review
Value engineering
Collection system
Infiltration/Inflow
Approval of user charge
system and proposed
sewer use ordinance.
Reserve capacity
Treatment of wastewater
from industrial users.
Federal facilities
fewer use ordinance
Federal share..
Grant conditions
Step 2+3 projects
*roject changes
Operation and mainte-
nance.
Adoption of sewer use or-
• dbiance and 'user
charge system.
mO acquisition
•told testing for innovative
and alternative technol-
ogy report.
Subpart E
Sec.
35.900. 35.901,
35.903, and
35.912.
35.905.
35.915.
35915-1
35.915.
1981
Amend-
ments.
1961
Amend-
ments.
1981
Amend-
monls.
35.917 et seq.
35.908.
35.918.
35.920 et seq.
1981
Amend-
ments.
35.935-1.
35.925.
25.925-2.
35.925-3.
35.925-5.
New Section.
35.925-12.
35.920-3.
New Section.
35.909
35.918-1.
1981
Amend-
merits.
1961
Amend-
ments.
35.925-8.
1981
Amend-
ments.
35.925-13.
35925-18
35 927 et seq
35.929-1,
36.935-13,
and 35.927-
4.
1961
Amend-
ments.
35.925-15.
35925-15
35.927-4.
35929-1
35930-4
35.935 et seq.
35.935-4
35.935-11.
35.935-12.
35.935-4.
New Section.
1981
Amend-
ments.
35935-9
Subpart 1
36.8216
35.2218
35.2260
35.2280
35.2262
35.2300
35.2350
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C r
Notice of budding comple-
tion And final inspection.
Project performance
Determination of allow-
able costs.
Advance purchase of eli-
gible land.
Funding of field testing
Subagreement enforce-
ment.
Determination of allow-
able costs.
Allowance for facilities
planning and design.
Subpart I information col-
lection requirements.
Subpart E
35.935-14.
1981
Arnsnd-
ments.
35.940.
Now Section.
1981
Amend-
ments,
35945
35.970.
35.940 et eeq.
1961
Amend-
ments.
NOW Section.
Description of Major Issues
In response to the interim final
regulation published on May 12,1982,
we received comments from a variety of
States, municipalities, professional
organizations, firms that work in the
program, and industries. Although the
preamble doesn't respond to every
comment individually, all were
considered and many served as the
basis for revisions to the interim final
regulation.
Effective Date
This regulation is effective for all
grants awarded on or after the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
Facilities plans and design initiated
under 40 CFR Subpart E continue to be
subject to the requirements in Subpart E.
Unless required by the 1981
amendments, no revisions to the
facilities plan or design will be required.
Work done under Subpart E will be
accepted for grant awards under this
subpart.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, EPA is proposing a new
section, § 35.2205, which would specify
a maximum allowable project cost.
Program Direction: Improved Water
Quality
The 1981 amendments stress the
importance of improving water quality
through the construction grants program.
The regulation reflects this emphasis in
several ways. It incorporates the
concept of "priority water quality
areas," which States will identify and
use in setting priorities for projects.
Revised regulations for water quality
management planning (40 CFR Part 130)
and water quality standarda-(40 CFR
Part 131), and guidance for State
preparation of section 305(b) reports will
also use the concept of priority water
quality areas for scheduling revisions to
water quality standards, total daily
maximum loads, and major permits, as
well as focusing monitoring,
enforcement and reporting efforts on
critical water quality problems. Priority
water quality areas will generally be
water quality limited segments, i.e.,
segments where applicable water
quality standards are not attainable
with application of technology-based
effluent limitations to point sources.
This term was introduced in the
interim final regulations; however, the
concept is not new. For the purposes of
construction grant funding and this
regulation, priority water quality areas
are specific stream segments or bodies
of water where municipal discharges
have resulted in the impairment of a
designated use or significant public
health risks, and where the reduction of
pollution from the municipal discharges
will substantially restore surface or
groundwater uses.
The regulation (§ 35.2111) includes a
limitation stating that no grant
assistance can be awarded for
particular stream segments after
December 28,1984, if a State has failed
to review and revise, as appropriate, its
applicable water quality standards. To
comply with this provision, States will
need to review and revise the water
quality standards for each stream
segment within the State in priority
order. In setting priorities for the review
of water quality standards States should
focus on priority water quality areas,
considering the timing of pending
advanced treatment and combined
sewer overflow funding decisions. The
necessary level of review will depend
upon the characteristics of a segirient
and the priority that a State assigns a
segment. For most effluent limited
segments no further water quality
standards reviews will be needed
beyond the determination that the
segment is indeed effluent limited. A
more comprehensive review will be
needed for segments designated as
water quality limited. Regulations
governing priority setting and the review
and revision of water quality standards
are found in the regulations for water
quality standards (40 CFR Part 131).
Within this context for setting
priorities, the regulation requires an
annual project priority list with two
sections: the-fundable portion consists
of those projects anticipated to be
funded from the current allotment; and
the planning portion consists of projects
anticipated to be funded from future
authorized allotments. After September
30.1982, Regional Administrators will
-------
6226 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday. February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
not fund projects until they accept, and
the States use, priority lists that reflect
the 1981 amendments.
The 1981 amendments added section
205(j) to the Act which requires States to
reserve not less than $100,000 nor more
than 1 percent of their annual allotment
for water quality management planning.
The regulation provides an exception to
the $100,000 minimum for Guam, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and
the Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas because of the small size of
their allotments.
The 1 percent ceiling is a maximum
limit rather than a required limit. The
language of the amendments states that
the reserve is "not to exceed" 1 percent.
Also, the "not to exceed" language is
identical to the language of the 205(g)
reserve for State administration which
provides for an optional maximum
percentage rather than a required
percentage. 40 CFR Part 130 will govern
the use of funds reserved under section
205(j).
This regulation in § 35.2108 also
addresses the need to make EPA funded
treatment'works phases and segments
operate to improve water quality.
Several commenters interpreted the
regulation to require in all cases that
grant recipients build the complete
waste treatment system, including even
its lowest priority components, if grant
assistance were awarded for any part of
the system. We made minor
modifications to the regulation to
address this misunderstanding.
Section 35.2108 requires that all
recipients of grants for a phase or
segment of treatment works negotiate a
commitment with the Regional
Administrator that assures that the
treatment works of which the phase or
segment is a part will be made
operational and meet the enforceable
requirements of the Act. Section 35.2108
embodies a longstanding EPA policy
previously contained in § 35.930-4. The
policy is that grant recipients must
commit to making EPA funded phases or
segments operational and comply with
the enforceable requirements of the Act
and to making them part of treatment
works that result in water quality
improvements. This does not necessarily
require recipients to commit to building
all parts of a complete waste treatment
system. However, the regulation does
require that recipients commit to
building the treatment works necessary
to make EPA funded phases or segments
contribute to improved water quality.
Priority System and List
There was some confusion over the
due date for submission of revised
annual lists to the Regional
Administrator for review. We have
revised § 35.2015(e) to clarify that each
State must submit a new' list by August
31 in order to allow time for review by
the Regional Administrator prior to the
beginning of the next fiscal year.
Activities Prior to Grant Award
One of the most significant changes in
the program resulting from the 1981
amendments is the elimination of grants
for planning (Step 1) and design (Step 2).
An allowance is provided to grantees for
facilities planning and design. A full
discussion of issues related to the
allowance is in the Appendix B section
of this preamble.
Step 2+3
We received several comments
recommending that the design portion of
a Step 2+3 grant be a grant rather than
an allowance. We believe the allowance
is more consistent with the
Congressional intent of the 1981
amendments to reduce EPA involvement
in grantees' design activities.
The 1981 amendments raised the limit
on building cost for projects eligible for
a Step 2+3 grant to $8 million. The
amount of the allowance will be based
on the estimated Step 3 building cost in
the Step 2+3 grant application. If the
grantee has not received a grant or
advance for facilities planning, the
Agency will pay 30 percent of the
Federal share of the estimated
allowance as soon as requested after the
Step 2+3 grant award. EPA will pay
half the remaining estimated allowance
when the design is 50 percent complete.
The final portion of the allowance will
be paid after the grantee awards all
prime subagreements for building the
project.
Advances
The 1981 amendments require States
to reserve a portion up to 10 percent of
their allotments to provide advances of
the allowance to small communities
which would otherwise be unable to
undertake planning and design
activities. Although the amendments do
not prescribe a minimum amount, the
Agency believes the Congress intended
that a reasonable reserve be
established. Designation of eligible
applicants to receive an advance will be
done entirely by the States.
Upon application by a State, a grant
will be awarded to the State for making
advances of allowance to small
communities. A State may request that
payments under the grant be assigned to
specified potential grant applicants. Any
community that has received an
advance will have any later allowance
reduced by an amount equal to the
advance.
Some commenters were concerned
that the States would not reserve
adequate funds to meet the demand of
small communities; others were
concerned that States would
unjustifiably lose funds through
reallotment because there would not be
a need or demand for them. The Agency
recognizes the potential for problems
related to this provision of the law, and
believes that solutions can be found to
those individual problems within the
framework provided by the regulation.
In particular, the regulation provides for
waiving this reserve requirement when
the State can demonstrate it is not
necessary because planning and design
requiring an advance is not expected to
begin during the period of availability of
the annual allotment. Some States, prior
to the 1981 amendments, had built up a
backlog of projects ready for Step 3
grants and had planned to initiate few if
any new Step 1 or Step 2 projects.
Further, .States have available the Step
2+3 approach which, if used
extensively, could reduce or eliminate
the need for this reserve.
NEPA Compliance
Before publication of the interim final
regulation there was great concern
expressed that the elimination of grants
for planning and design would make
NEPA compliance ineffective, because
for NEPA compliance to be most
effective, environmental issues must be
addressed in conjunction with planning
the project, and traditionally that has
been done during Step 1. The
elimination of .Step 1 and Step 2 grants
postpones official EPA involvement in
the project until after planning and
design are complete. To avoid the design
of environmentally unsound
alternatives, the regulation encourages
applicants to confer with review
agencies very early in the process and
request, in writing, that EPA make
necessary NEPA determinations. In this
way, NEPA responsibilities can be met
at the appropriate time, avoiding delay
and added expense that could result
from postponement. In any case, the
regulation requires that the
environmental review under NEPA be
completed before submission of an
application.
Grantees currently injhe facilities
planning process with Step 1 grant
assistance are bound by existing
regulations and grant agreements to
complete their environmental
documents as planned and obtain a
formal determination in accordance
with Part 6 of this chapter.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday. February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6227
Financial Capability
In 1981 amendments stress the
importance of the applicant's financial
and management capability to
adequately build, operate and maintain
the proposed project, particularly the
ability to finance adequate operations
and maintenance (including
replacement) of facilities through their
user charge systems. Three of the
"limitations on awards"! (conditions that
must be met before a grant can be
awarded) are designed to ensure
adequate financial capability and
management of Federally funded
treatment works. First, the applicant is
required to demonstrate that it has the
legal, institutional, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure adequate
building and operation and maintenance
of the treatment works. Second, the
draft plan of operation, required at the
time of application, must include "an
adequate budget identifying the basis
for determining the annual operation
and maintenance costs and the costs of
personnel, material, energy and
administration." Third, the applicant
must have the Regional Administrator's
approval of a user charge system that
will produce adequate revenues
required for operation and maintenance
(including replacement), and that
contains an adequate financial
management system that will accurately
account for revenues generated by the
system and expenditures for operation
and maintenance (including
replacement) of the treatment system.
EPA has developed guidance to assist
grantees in meeting these requirements.
Advanced Treatment Reviews
In March 1979 Congress directed EPA
to review advanced treatment projects.
The 1978 oversight and appropriation
hearings focused on the high costs and
often marginal benefits of advanced
treatment projects. In action approving
the FY1979 appropriation for the
construction grants program, the House
and Senate Appropriations Conference
Committee agree "that grant funds may
be used for construction of new facilities.
providing treatment greater than
secondary only if the incremental cost of
. the advanced treatment is $1 million or
less, or if the Administrator personally
determines that advanced treatment is
required and will definitely result in
significant water quality and public
health improvements." The incremental
dollar limit for the Administrator's
review was raised from $1- million to $3
million in FY 1980. Each year's
appropriation legislation or committee
report has continued the' review
requirements.
Review procedures were set forth in
EPA policy issued in March 1979. EPA
published a revised draft policy in June
1980, and a final policy is nearing
publication.
Section 35.2101 requires that before
award of grant assistance, EPA review
under the advanced treatment policy
any project requiring advanced
treatment. EPA recommends that the
proposed advanced treatment projects
be submitted for review upon
completion of facility planning, but
requires that the review be completed
before submission of any application.
Innovative and Alternative (I/A)
Technology
The 1981 amendments extend the
innovative and alternative program by
providing an I/A set-aside to increase
grants for I/A projects. The regulation
allows the Governor to reserve amounts
from the annual allotment which range
from a minimum, of 4 percent up to 7Vz
percent. The Federal share of grants for
I/A technologies will be 20 percent more
than the Federal share for grants for
conventional technologies as long as the
Federal share totals no more than 85
percent. The regulation also includes
provisions for field testing for
verification of design parameters for
higher risk technologies which EPA may
fund either as a preaward cost or as a
separate field testing grant. Upon
completion of the field test, the grantee
must submit a report containing the
procedure, cost, results and conclusions
of the test.
The 1981 amendments maintain the
cost-effectiveness preference for the I/A
program. Several cornmenters were
confused by the provision which
describes the applicability of the cost-^
effectiveness preference when the I/A
components are less then 100 percent of
the present w,orth cost of project.
Section 35.2032(b) has been clarified to
indicate that when the I/A components
are 50 percent or less of the present
worth cost of the treatment works, the
cost-effectiveness preference applies
only to the I/A components.
EPA is incorporating the innovative
and alternative technology guidelines
from Appendix E of the 1978 regulation
into the CG series.
Infiltration/Inflow
The interim final regulations
simplified the procedure for determining
whether a treatment works is subject to
excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I).
The procedures previously specified ifi
the regulation were not only time
consuming and costly, but also produced
inaccurate and misleading results in
many instances. The net effect was that
considerable effort was spent analyzing
and repairing sewer systems without,
achieving the expected benefits of
reduced flows and properly sized
facilities.
The revised procedures incorporated
in the interim final regulation specified
baseline values for both infiltration and
inflow. Comparison of the guildline
values with actual flows in sewer
systems allows rapid screening of those
systems not subject to excessive I/I.
This final regulation continues the use of
a baseline for comparison of infiltration
rates but deletes the baseline value
previously specified for inflow.
The baseline figure of 120 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd) for infiltration
analysis is unchanged in the final
regulation. The figure derived from
Needs Survey data for 270 Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area cities. The
120 gpcd value is the national average
wastewater flow for these cities and is
comprised of 70 gpcd domestic
wastewater and 50 gpcd of non-
excessive infiltration.
The baseline figure for inflow was
deleted because sufficient data were not
available to support its uniform
application to all projects. In the final
regulation, inflow is excessive when it
results in chronic operational problems
in the treatment system.
The final regulation provides that no
further I/I work is required if domestic
wastewater plus non-excessive
infiltration does not exceed 120 gpcd,
and there are no chronic operational
problems resulting from hydraulic
overloading of the treatment works
during storm events. Furthermore, even
in cases where infiltration marginally
exceeds 120 gpcd, the grantee may
proceed with design and construction of
facilities to accommodate the entire
flow provided that such facilities are
cost effective. In these cases, Federal
grant participation will be based on 120
gpcd and grantees must demonstrate
that sufficient local funds are available
to construct and operate the entire
treatment works.
Only, in cases where infiltration is
determined to be excessive in
accordance with the previously
described procedures or the treatment
works is experiencing chronic
operational problems due to inflow, will
grantees be required to undertake more
detailed sewer system evaluation
studies and propose an I/I rehabilitation
program. A limited amount of grant
assisted sewer rehabilitation may also
be undertaken on systems with flow?
less than 120 gpcd provided that
grantees can demonstrate that such
-------
6228
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
rehabilitation is cost effective for
specific portions of their systems.
Grantees will be responsible for the
results achieved by I/I rehabilitation
programs conducted using Federal funds
as part of their certification of project
performance at the end of the first year's
operation of the facility. Grantees will
also be responsible for taking corrective
actions if flows are not reduced by the
amounts specified or operational
problems' are not corrected as a result of
the rehabilitation program.
Public Participation
Several commenters expressed
concern that, with the exception of the
requirement for public hearings in
conjunction with developing State
priority systems and project priority
lists, the proposed regulation relies on
Part 25 to supply all further
requirements necessary to involve the
public fully in decisions relating to the
construction grants program. EPA is
fully committed to public participation
in all its programs and believes that Part
25 affords every opportunity necessary
and available under the Clean Water
Act for public participation in the
construction grants program.
However, because the elimination of
Step 1 and 2 grants effectively prohibits
EPA involvement in facilities planning
and design, neither provisions of this
subpart nor of Part 25 apply to activities
of a potential grantee prior to
submission of the grant application.
Grantees who request an early
determination of NEPA compliance can
take advantage of involving the public in
Step 1 and Step 2 through, application of
public participation requirements of Part
6. Furthermore, this regulation requires
the State to certify at the time of
application that there has been
adequate public participation in
accordance with State and local laws.
Project Schedule
The regulation requires that a
timetable of key project events be
included in the grant application. The
advice of the grantee's design engineer
should be sought when developing 'the
schedule. The schedule should include
important dates regarding procurement
actions, building schedule, and
operation of the project. If the grantee
has multiple projects, he must
coordinate each project's schedule with
the others and with the State's project
priority list. Any change in the project
schedule will require a formal grant
amendment. This requirement is
necessary to insure the continued
coordination of project completion with
permit and compliance schedules, court
orders and State administrative orders.
State Certification
The 1981 amendments allow States
with sufficient delegated program
administration authority to certify that
grant applications comply with all
applicable Federal requirements. The
certification must be supported by
documentation specified in the
delegation agreement,, and the Regional
Administrator shall accept the
certification unless he determines the
State has failed to establish adequate
grounds for the certification or that an
applicable requirement has not been
met. Several commenters pointed out
the failure .of the interim final regulation
to state the provision of the 1981
amendments mandating EPA to accept
or reject in writing a fully certified
application within 45 days of receipt or
the application is automatically
approved. That oversight has been
corrected.
Treatment of Wastewater From
Industrial Users
This section of the interim final
regulation that dealt with treatment of
wastewater from industrial users was
intended to continue the Agency policy
of not providing grant assistance for
treatment works that are exclusively for
industrial use. In stating that policy, we
used the term "compatible industrial
wastewater" and defined it in terms that
could have been interpreted to prohibit
funding POTW capacity to serve many
industrial users. It was not the Agency's
intention to place1 a new restriction on
funding for treatment works serving
industries. To correct that problem, we
eliminated the term "compatible
industrial wastewater" and added a
new provision. Section 35.2125 prohibits
award of grants for treatment works
that are exclusively for industrial use. It
is similar to a provision proposed in the
May 18,1981 Federal Register (46 FR
27314). Several commentors objected to
the continuation of the Agency policy
not to fund projects exclusively for
industrial uSe. We believe that
expanding eligibility to a substantial
new category of industrial projects
would be contrary to the overall intent
of the 1981 amendments.
Project Performance
The pu-pose of EPA assistance is to
build treatment works that have been
planned and designed to meet the
enforceable requirements of the Act. By
executing a grant agreement, the grantee
is obligated to build the project
according to its approved design
specifications and operate and maintain
the project during its design life to meet
the enforceable requirements of the Act.
The regulation requires, the grantee to
reach this performance goal within a
year after the project has been put into
use for its intended purpose. The costs
of architectural, engineering, legal,
technical and other services necessary
to assure that the project is built
according to its design drawings and
specification? are allowable project
costs.
The date of initiation of operation is
determined by the grantee,, in
consultation with the design engineer
and included in the project schedule. To
assist in operating the project during the
first full year, the amendments require
the grantee to procure the services of the
engineer or firm that provided architect
engineering services during construction
or the engineer or firm that supervised
construction. The regulation uses the
term "construction" to clarify
congressional intent and makes this
provision consistent with the language
in the Act. The amendments state that
such engineer shall "supervise operation
of the treatment works, train operating
personnel, and prepare, curricula and
training material for operating
personnel."
EPA uses the term "supervising" as it
is used in the law only once, when
restating the statutory requirements.
Elsewhere in detailing requirements the
regulation uses language requiring the
engineer to "direct" the operation of the
project and revise the operation and
maintenance manual as necessary to
accommodate operating experience. It is
not the intent of the amendment or the
regulation to involve the engineer in the
administrative details of daily operation
of the plant such as individual personnel
transactions or direct supervision of a
contractor's employees. On the other
hand, the legislative history of the
amendments makes it clear that
Congress envisioned a more active role
for the engineer than merely advising
the grantee, and that the intent was to
firmly establish appropriate
responsibility of all participants in the
process.
We believe that (he regulation
provides a sufficiently flexible
framework to allow grantees and their
engineers to negotiate, on a case-by-
case basis, appropriate arrangements
that fulfill the intent of the amendments.
The grantee may require sufficient
assurances, guarantees or indemnity or
other contractual requirements to
achieve this goal.
At the end of the first year of
operation, the grantee must certify to the
Regional Administrator whether the
project meets its design specifications
and the enforceable requirements of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
6229
Act. This has been changed from the
language of the interim final regulation
which said the certification was whether
the project was capable of meeting
project performance standards, in order
to more closely reflect the 1981
amendments and their intent. The
certification that the project meets
project performance standards must be
satisfactory to the Regional
Administrator and must reflect at a
minimum that applicable permit or other
discharge requirements are currently
being met.
If the project is not affirmatively
certified, the grantee must provide a
corrective action report. The cost of
bringing the project into compliance is
the responsibility of the grantee except
for the modification or replacement of
innovative or alternative technology
projects. The grantee must also commit
itself to a reasonable date on which it
can make an affirmative certification to
the Regional Administrator. If the
grantee does not bring the project into
compliance with the design
specifications and enforceable
requirements of the Act, EPA will take
appropriate and prompt remedial action.
More detailed discussion of project
certification is contained in the CG
series guidance.
Delegation
For the sake of simplicity, the
regulation refers to the role of the
Regional Administrators. Delegatioi. to
State agencies remains an integral pt. rt
of construction grants program
management. As stated in § 35.2000(c),
to the extent that the Regional
Administrator delegates responsibility
to a State agency under a delegation
agreement, the term "Regional
Administrator" is to be read "State
agency."
Reserve Capacity
One commenter, noting that
interceptors funded after the 1981
amendments are limited to 20 years
reserve capacity in all cases, argued that
the amendments and their history meant
to allow Step 1 or Step 2 grantees with
interceptors now under design for 40
years reserve capacity to receive Step 3
grants for that capacity. We disagree
and believe that paragraph (a) of
§ 35.2123 is a correct reading of the law
and its history. The "grandfathering"
provision applies only if EPA awarded a
grant for a Step 3 segment of an
interceptor before December 29,1981.
Several commenters expressed
confusion over the application of 1990
needs as used in this section. This has
been rewritten to make it clear that this
date only has relevance after 1990, with
1990 being the cap on eligible needs
after 1990.
Additionally, several questions were
raised on how to determine "existing
needs" and their relation to unallowable
(beginning October 1,1984) reserve
capacity. First, existing needs should be
considered flows as estimated to exist
at time of grant award, and as described
in an approved facility plan or facility
plan amendment. For onsite systems,
existing needs can include anticipated
flows from failing onsite systems. The
amount of these anticipated flows
should be based on studies updated to
the estimated date of grant award where
necessary. Second, the length of the
planning period to use in determining
reserve capacity and in the cost-
effectiveness analyses is to be 20 years
(§ 35.2030(b)(3)). This is consistent with
previous practice {40 CFR, Part 35,
Subpart E, Appendix A.6.b and sections
204(a) (1) and (2) and 208(b)(2)(A) of the
Clean Water Act). While this does not
require that the project include capacity
for a twenty-year period, it does require
that the project be shown to be the most
cost effective when compared to
alternatives with capacity for a twenty
year period.
For example, a project that only
provides capacity for existing needs
may be a stage of a complete waste
treatment system. Alternatively, the
project could be only for the costs to
meet the existing needs, with the costs
for reserve capacity identified using cost
curves as described in the CG series
guidance.
Federal Share
Some commenters expressed
confusion relating to eligibility of
treatment works phases or segments for
75 percent Federal grants after
September 30,1984 (grandfathering).
Section 35.2152 of the regulation, which
sets forth the requirement
grandfathering, has been clarified in the
final regulation. The final regulation
makes our original intent that all
grandfathered phases or segments be
described in a facilities plan approved
by the Regional Administrator before
October 1,1984, and that they be built in
logical sequence assuring expeditious
operation and compliance with the
enforceable requirements of the Act.
The fact that an approved facilities
plan despribes a complete waste
treatment system that includes a
grandfathered phase or segment does
not mean that the complete system is
grandfathered. The description of the
complete system is a planning tool to
help put the proposed project in context.
Under § 35.2152, the only grandfathered
treatment works are those that are
described in a facilities plan that is
approved prior to October 1,1984, and
that include a phase or segment that is
awarded a Step 3 grant prior to October
1,1984. Treatment works that do not
include a phase or segment that is
awarded a grant prior to October 1,
1984, are not grandfathered merely
because they are described in a facilities
plan that contains grandfathered
treatment works. For example, if there
were two treatment facilities and their
interceptors described in the facilities
plan, and only one had received a grant
for a phase or segment prior to October
1,1984, then only that facility and its
interceptors are eligible for
grandfathering. However, two treatment
facilities with simple interconnections,
such as sludge lines, are considered
separate treatment facilities for
purposes of this regulation.
Concerning the sequence for EPA
funding of grandfathered phases and
segments, § 35.2152 requires that EPA
funded phases and segments be built in
a sequence necessary to make phases or
segments previously funded by EPA
operational and comply with the
enforceable requirements of the Act
before other phases or segments receive
EPA funding. EPA expects the sequence
of funding segments will result in the
earliest compliance with the enforceable
requirements of the Act. For example,
where an interceptor segment is built,
the next segments to be funded are
those which will make the interceptor
operational and meet the enforceable
requirements of the Act. EPA would not
expect to fund a segment in another
interceptor until the first interceptor is
operational.
Another area of concern is the
uniform lower Federal share. The lower
uniform Federal share is applied on a
project-by-project basis. That is, each
separate grant, including phased and
segmented grants, is viewed
individually. Prior to October 1,1984,
grant assistance is awarded for a phase
or segment with the Federal share
prevailing at the time of award.
Separate phases or segments of the
same treatment works may, therefore,
receive grant assistance with varying
Federal shares, but once grant
assistance is awarded for a project, the
Federal share shall be the same for any
grant increase within the scope of the
project.
There was a question raised on the
relationship between the
"grandfathering" Federal share
provision for treatment works first
awarded segment grants before October
1,1984, and the Governor's discretion to
-------
6230
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34. / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
uniformly reduce the Federal grant snare
throughout a State.
When EPA first proposed a regulation
to implement the 1980 amendment (Pub.
L. 96-483) regarding the uniform lower
Federal share (46 FR 27314, May 18,
1981), we addressed the issue of varying
the Federal share among treatment
works phases or segments. That
proposal and this regulation allow
variations among treatment works
phases or segments. Requiring States to
maintain the same Federal share to each
phase or segment of an entire waste
treatment system would inhibit, or even
preclude effectiveness of the
amendment. However, for increases
within the scope of a project, the
Federal share will be the same as the
share of the initial award for that
project.
In instituting the "grandfathering"
provision, Congress did not restrict the
use of the lower Federal share. The 1981
amendments used the phrase "shall be
eligible for grants at 75 per centum . . .,"
not "shall be 75 per centum." Reading
this provisions consistent with the
uniform lower Federal share means that
should the Governor not reduce the
Federal share, post 1984 phases or
segments would receive 75 percent
grants like 1984 or earlier phases or
segments of that treatment works. If the
Governor reduces the share, post-1984
phaseo or segments would be eligible for
a grant at only the reduced Federal
share prevailing in that State.
By maintaining our initial
interpretation we are able to give effect
to both provisions now part of the law.
We believe, further, that this view is
consistent with prevailing policies
calling for maintaining and increasing
State control over the construction
grants program.
Another issue was the period of time
for which the share would be reduced,
EPA believes that one year periods are
reasonable, but the Governor may lower
the share for a shorter or longer period
of time as the Governor deems
appropriate. However, this flexibility
may not be used to discriminate against
particular projects or classes of projects.
Allotment and Reallotment
Recent experience with reallotment
and several comments on the interim
regulation highlighted the need for
changes in the "Allotment and
reallotment" section (§ 35.2010) and the
"Reserves" section (§ 35.2020).
First, we made it clear that § 35.2010
applies only to funds, appropriated under
section 205 of the Clean Water Act.
Funds available to the construction
grants program from sources other than
section 205, such as the Public Works
Employment Act and section 206 of the
Clean Water Act, are not subject to
reallotment under § 35.2010.
We revised § 35.2010 (c) and (d) to
clarify the intent of those provisions.
The interim final regulation revised
§ 35.910-2 in response to a problem
encountered in reallotting FY1979 and
FY1980 funds last year. Some regions
deobligated funds late in fiscal year 1981
that were subject to reallotment on
October 1,1981. Deobligated funds must
be reissued to the regions by the EPA
Comptroller in headquarters before the
Regional Administrator can reobligate
them to other projects. That process
takes time and some funds were not
reissued in time for use before the end of
the fiscal year. As a result, § 35.2010 (c)
and (d) provide that funds deobligated
by a Region which are not reissued to
the Region before the reallotment date
for those funds will not be subject to
reallotment and shall be made available
for obligation.
We added a new section (§ 35.2021) to
clarify the reallotment provisons of the
various reserves under § 35.2020.
Paragraph (c) of § 35.2021 requires that
Regions which deobligate funds from
one of the mandatory reserves under
§ 35.2020 before the initial reallotment
date for those funds return them to the
same reserve after they are reissued by
the EPA Comptroller. Funds from a
mandatory reserve which are
deobligated after the initial reallotment
date for those funds are not to be
returned to the reserve and are governed
by § 35.2010(d).
Finally, we deleted the words "sums
alloted for" from the second sentence of
§ 35.2010(b). This change was necessary
to clarify the year with which funds
realloted or deobligated before an
approval of an appropriation for the
current year would be identified. In the
future these funds will be treated like
funds for the current year regardless of
whether funds for that year have been
appropriated.
Combined Sewer Overflow
The regulation incorporates two
provisions of the 1981 amendments
directly related to funding the correction
of combined sewer overflow problems:
(1) Section 35.2024 implements section
201(n)(l) of the Act and states that after
September 30,1984 (when correction of
combined sewer overflows is no longer
an'eligible category), the Governor may
elect to use the regular State allotments
from funds authorized under section 207
to address impaired uses in priority
water quality areas due to the impacts
of combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
(2) Section 35.2024 also deals with the
use after September 30,1982, of funds to
be appropriated under section 201(n)(2)
of the Act for addressing impaired uses
or public health risks resulting from
combined sewer overflows in marine
bays and estuaries. In addition to the
priority criteria set forth here, § 35.2040
contains particular grant application
requirements for this separate fund.
While this separate CSO fund's
eligibility and priority criteria and
application requirements are distinct, it
is subject to all applicable limitations on
award and grant conditions, as well as
Federal share, allowable cost and other
provisions imposed on CSO projebts
funded with monies authorized in
section 207.
The regulation reflects the language of
the conference committee report on H.R.
4503, placing restrictions on the funding
of combined sewer overflow correction.
Directed at both provisions for funding
of combined sewer overflow projects,
this language requires States to
demonstrate to EPA the necessity for the
project and the specific benefits to be
achieved.
Guidance on the preparation and
review of applications for marine CSO
projects is available from the State
water pollution control agency. Non-
marine CSO projects applied for under
§ 35.2015(b)(2) (iii) and (iv) can also use
the marine CSO guidance to prepare the
demonstration of water quality benefits
required by § 35.2024(b); however, the
demonstration should address fishing
(rather than shellfishing under the
marine CSO program).
Work by Debarred or Suspended
Persons
EPA published procedures for
debarments and suspensions under EPA
assistance programs, 40 CFR Part 32 (47
FR 35940) on August 17,1982. This
regulation states EPA's policy to do
business only with persons who
properly use Federal assistance.
The purpose of § 35.2105 is to inform
EPA whether the applicant awarded a
contract for planning or design work to a
debarred, suspended, or excluded
individual, organization, or unit of
government. If the applicant certifies
that it has made such an award, EPA
shall closely examine the facilities
plans, and design drawings and
specifications to determine whether to
award a Step 3 grant or take other
appropriate action.
Value Engineering
Before the enactment of Pub. L. 97-
117, value engineering was required
during the design of projects with a
projected total Step 3 grant eligible cost
of $10 million or more, excluding the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
6231
cost for interceptor and collector
sewers. Pub. L. 97-117 requires that
value engineering be conducted on all
projects that did not have prior grant
assistance for design where the total
cost of building the treatment works is
estimated to exceed $10 million. (This
includes the cost of building interceptor
and collector sewers but does not
include the cost of services.) Projects
that had grant assistance for design are
subject to the value engineering
requirements of 40 CFR 35.926.
Miscellaneous Terms
The terms "project," "treatment
works" and "complete waste treatment
system" have specific meanings in this
regulation and should not be used
interchangeably. This reflects a
consistency with the Act and EPA's
general regulations for assistance
programs (40 CFR Part 30).
"Project" refers only to the activities
or tasks identified in the grant
agreement.
The definition of "treatment works" is
essentially the same as that contained in
section 212 of the Act In the context of
the Clean Water Act, this is airoad
definition, and includes "any devices
and systems for the storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of municipal
sewage, domestic sewage, or liquid
industrial wastes."
A "complete waste treatment system"
is the total of all elements necessary for
the transport, treatment and ultimate
disposal of treated wastewater and
residuals.
Building
The term "building" has been used
throughout this regulation to describe
the principal activity to be undertaken
in the grants program. That is, the
program provides assistance for the
erection, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement or extension
of facilities to transport and treat
wastewater. The term "building" is used
in this regulation rather than
"construction" (the term used in the
past) because "construction" is defined
in the Act to include facilities planning
and design. EPA can no longer award
grant assistance solely for facilities
planning and design activities.
Costs of Acquiring Existing Treatment
Works
Section D.l.e of Appendix A to the
interim final rule states long-standing
EPA policy limiting grant assistance for
the acquisition of existing publicly or
privately owned treatment works. This
provision explains that the costs of
acquiring existing treatment works are
allowable only if the acquisition
provides new pollution control benefits
and meets three other criteria.
The limitations contained in section
D.l.e reflect the purpose of section 201
of the Clean Water Act, which is to
make grant funds available to
municipalities for the construction of
treatment works that provide new
pollution control benefits (i.e., pollution
control services that are additional to
those being provided before grant
award) and not to provide
reimbursement for costs incurred to
construct existing facilities. In view of
this purpose, acquisitions of existing
treatment works are generally ineligible
for section 201 funding because they
usually do not provide new pollution
control benefits. Conversely, the
upgrade, expansion, or rehabilitation of
a project that includes an acquisition
does provide such benefits and thus the
upgrade, expansion, or rehabilitation
portion may be eligible although the
acquisition portion is not. An example of
an eligible acquisition would be a
municipality's purchase of demonstrated
excess treatment works capacity that
was built without Federal funds and
provides new pollution control benefits.
On October 28,1982, subsequent to
the promulgation of the interim final
rule, the EPA Board of Assistance
Appeals issued a decision on the case of
Atlantic City Municipal Utilities
Authority (EPA Docket No. 81-19) which
misinterpreted the new pollution control
benefits principle. In Atlantic City, the
Board found allowable the costs
incurred by the Authority to purchase a
privately-owned sewage collection
system. The Board based its
determination on the assumption that
the acquisition would result in new
pollution control benefits because the
Authority intended to rehabilitate the
system. This determination, however,
overlooked the fact that the acquisition
independent of the rehabilitation plan
would not provide new water pollution
control services additional to those
being provided before acquisition.
We have modified Appendix A to
state explicitly that in determining the
eligibility of acquisitions of existing
facilities it is necessary to distinguish
between the acquisition and any
subsequent improvements. An
acquisition of an existing facility is
eligible only if the acquisition, in and of
itself, considered apart from any
upgrade, expansion or rehabilitation,
provides new pollution control benefits.
Appendix A—Revised Interim Final
Rule
Allowable Costs
Appendix A consolidates information
on allowable and unallowable costs.
Although the Appendix continues
existing Agency policy in 40 CFR Part
35, the Handbook of Procedures and
Program Requirement Memoranda, it
also reflects new policies designed to
restrict allowability assuring more
pollution control benefits from limited
program funds. To simplify its use,
Appendix A has been organized by type
of cost, i.e., subagreement costs, small
systems, equipment, etc.
Replacement and Additions Costs
Section H.2.e of Appendix A states
EPA's policy against providing grant
assistance for replacing, through
reconstruction or substitution, failed
treatment works* that were built with
construction grants assistance. This
provision bars ^the procedure of
providing grant assistance for
replacement costs after the costs under
the original grant for the failed
treatment works are disallowed.
Based on comments received on the
interim final regulation, we have
clarified the replacement cost provision
in two ways. First, the sentence
structure has been modified to make
clear that the provision applies to
treatment works, that fail before the
expiration of their design life, either
before or after initiation of operation.
Second, the statutory reference has been
modified to clarify our original intent
that the provision covers treatment
works built with Federal assistance
provided under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-
660) or any subsequent amendments
including, but not limited to, Pub. L. 92-
500.
We have also clarified the policy
against grant assistance for replacement
costs by explaining, in Paragraph H.l.d
of Appendix A, EPA's policy concerning
additions to projects that fail to meet
their performance standards. The
additions provision is not an exception
to the prohibition against grant
assistance for replacement costs. As
Paragraph H.2.e makes clear, the costs
of replacing failed treatment works
through reconstruction or substitution
are unallowable.
Paragraph H.l.d provides that if the
additions costs are demonstrated not to
be caused by the grantee's
mismanagement or the improper actions
of others (e.g., the grantee's engineers or
contractors), the costs are allowable
under limited conditions. Subparagraph
-------
6232
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
H.l.d(3)(a) provides that if the need for
additions is caused by changes in
performance standards of design criteria
outside the grantee's control or by a
written agreement or directive to delay
building a portion of the treatment
works, the cost of the additions is
allowable. Subparagraph H.l.d(3)(b)
limits Che allowability of additions not
covered by subparagraph H.l.d(3)(a) by
excluding the costs of rework, delay,
acceleration or disruption caused by the
additions and requiring on projects for
which grants are awarded after
December 28,1981, that the additions be
made during the project's first year of
operation.
Cost of Corrective Action Report
In the interim final regulation the cost
of the corrective action report was listed
as allowable. One commenter
questioned this, and upon review of the
1981 amendments we have concluded
that the Congress intended this cost to
be unallowable. The statute refers to
undertaking correction at other than
Federal expense, and the corrective
action report is a part of that effort.
Costs Related to Subagreement
Enforcement
The construction grants regulation has
long referred to the authority of EPA to
provide technical and legal assistance in
the administration and enforcement of
subagreements. This regulation
describes EPA financial assistance as
an alternative to direct assistance. It is
generally unallowable unless a number
of conditions are met. These conditions
include a formal grant amendment
specifically covering the costs before
they are incurred and the Regional
Administrator's determination that there
is a significant Federal interest in the
subagreement matters at issue.
Mercury Seals
The cost of process equipment such as
trickling filters and comminutors that
use mercury seals is no longerjisted as
an unallowable cost. While the Agency-
continues to have concerns about the
safe use of mercury seals, there is no
statutory basis for prohibiting the use of
mercury seals. Decisions on the use of
mercury seals should be made on a
case-by-case basis; specific guidance on
this subject is contained in the CG series
guidance.
Appendix B: Allowance for Facilities
Planning and Design—Final Rule
One of the most significant changes in
the construction grants program
resulting from the 1981 Amendments is
the elimination of grants for planning
(Step 1) and design (Step 2). Grant
agreements include an allowance for
facilities planning and design. Grantees
that currently have a Step 1 or Step 2
grant will be able to complete the work
included in their scope of work using the
present system of grant payments.
However, the 1981 Amendments prohibit
new grants exclusively for facilities
planning or design. Those activities will
be completed by potential grantees
before they apply for a grant to build
their projects. The Congress, in
providing the allowance mechanism,
sought to achieve systemwide
efficiency. In so doing, the Congress
acknowledged the potential for inequity
in the allowance for any given project.
The device in the law is not a cost
reimbursement, but an allowance. EPA
understands that, in practice, any
savings realized from the allowance will
be available to each community for
general public purposes. The Agency
expects that these funds will be used to
defray unreimbursed expenses
associated with plant construction. Due
to the unrestricted nature of the
allowance, however, EPA will not audit
the use of these funds.
Appendix B contains the procedures
to determine'the amount of advances of
allowance and of the estimated and
final allowances. Allowances in
Appendix B are based on the percentage
of building costs that have historically
been attributable to facilities planning
and design. Costs of specific facilities
planning and design activities are not
segregated and cannot be considered as
a basis for reimbursement in addition to
the allowance.
The allowance for a project is a single
sum based on the actual total allowable
building cost. Allowances are not
auditable and the activities they cover
are not subject to EPA requirements for
procurement under assistance
agreements (40 CFR Part 33). However,
the Congress did not intend to reduce
the opportunities afforded minority and
women's business enterprises (MBE/
WBE) to compete for contracts
associated with construction of publicly
owned treatment works; therefore, it is
EPA's policy to encourage recipients to
adopt procurement procedures for all
activities of their construction program
that, at a minimum, include the
affirmative steps in 40 CFR § 33.240.
EPA will request information from grant
applicants regarding the level of
minority and women's business
enterprise participation achieved during
planning and design activities in order
to meet our obligation to report MBE
and WBE participation in the
construction grants program.
The data analysis for the development
of the allowances took the form of using
one parameter as the sole predictor of a
second parameter. The method employed
was bivariate analysis using a linear
regression technique, a convenient,
widely accepted way of analyzing both
large and small data sets for
relationships. The least-squares method
was used for the linear regression
analysis; this method yields an equation
which expresses one variable in terms
of another. The allowances for facilities
planning and design are based on such
regression equations.
Since the allowance applies to all of
the work performed during the facilities
planning and design of the project, not
just architectural or engineering
services, the historical data used to
develop the allowance tables included
all of the allowable costs of the Step 1
and Step 2 work. In addition, prior to
any analysis being performed, all of the
cost values were updated (adjusted for
inflation) and normalized (adjusted to a
common geographical area) to fourth
quarter (calendar year) 1980 Kansas
City/St. Joseph, Missouri dollars.
Aftet the publication of the proposed
allowance tables in the Federal Register
on May 12,1982, additional analysis of
the historical cost data was performed.
This additional work was undertaken
for two reasons. First, it was desired to
verify the appropriateness of the
methodology and procedures used to
develop the allowance tables, and if
possible to improve it. Second, the
additional analysis was necessary to
respond to comments which suggested
different approaches for analyzing the
cost data. As part of this follow-up
analysis, EPA contracted for a
statistician to conduct an independent
review of the methodology and
procedure that were used to develop the
proposed (May 12,1982) allowance
tables.
The follow-up analysis contains two
refinements that were not included in
the development of the proposed
allowance tables. The proposed
allowance tables were developed from a
regression analysis that related building
cost (in dollars) to Step 1 and/or Step 2
cost (expressed as a percentage of
building cost). The proposed allowance
tables were calculated using the
resulting regression equations. This
technique, although valid, showed a
poor correlation between the two
variables. Although the basic technique
used to generate the regression equation
is sound, the result tends to mask the
actual relationships between building
cost and Step 1 and Step 2 cost. In order
to overcome the masking of the
variation, the independent statistical
consultant suggested a new method of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
6233
relating the two variables. The new
method entailed relating the building
cost (in dollars) directly to the Step 1
and/or Step 2 cost (in dollars), and not
to Step 1 and/or Step 2 cost (expressed
as a percentage of building cost) as was
done in the original analysis. This
method produced a very good
correlation (in the 80-85% range) and
supported the underlying hypothesis
that a change in building cost results in
a change in Step 1 and/or Step 2 cost.
Since the method for developing the
regression equation changed, it was
necessary to change the method of
calculating the allowance percentage.
Instead qf inserting the building coat
into an equation and "Calculating a
percent, a two step process was
necessary. First a building cost was
entered into the regression equation to
obtain the facilities planning and/or
design cost. The resulting dollar value
was then divided by the input building
cost tp obtain the allowance percentage.
The second change in the
development of the final allowance
tables involved the selection of projects
that were included in the analysis. The
analysis that resulted in the
development of the proposed allowance
tables included all of the projects in
EPA's construction cost data base that
had Step 1 cost and/or Step 2 cost. This
resulted in the inclusion of a number of
projects in the analysis'that wefe
lacking an associated Step 1 or Step 2
cost. The Step cost could have been
missing for a number of reasons. For
example, the Step 1 cost could have
been funded by the community. This
would result in a project being included
in the analysis that had a Step 2 cost
without any associated Step 1 cost. For
this reason, the analysis that resulted in
the final allowance tables only included
projects that had both a Step 1 and a
Step 2 cost.
In the proposed allowance tables, the
< "owance for design was developed by
subtracting the values obtained from the
regression equation for facilities
planning from the values obtained from
.the regression equation for combined
facilities planning and design to develop
a third equation. This mathematical
procedure was necessary because many
of the Step 2 projects included in the
earlier analysis contained
reimbursement for facilities planning
cost in the Step 2 awards. Since the
analysis that re? -tlted in the
development cJ the fuial allowance
tables only included projects that
contained both a Step 1 and Step 2 cost,
it was not necessary to use this
mathematical procedure. Instead the
allowance for design was developed
directly from the regression equation
relating building cost (in dollars) to Step
2 cost (in dollars).
As a result of this follow-up analysis,
the final allowance tables differ slightly
from the tables that were published on
May 12,1982. The percentages in the
final allowance tables are higher for
projects with low building cost and
lower for projects with high building
cost than those in the proposed
allowance tables.
We received 38 comments concerning
the allowance for facilities planning and
design. A number of commenters stated
that the allowance would not fully
compensate communities for the
facilities planning and design cost
associated with complicated or involved
projects. Similarly, other commenters
were concerned that the allowance
procedure could discourage value
engineering (VE) or designs
incorporating innovative or alternative
(I/A) technologies, because the higher
cost normally associated with these
services would not be fully covered by
the allowance.
EPA carefully considered these
comments. However, after extensive
deliberation, we determined that it was/
not in the best interest of the program to
change the allowance procedures. This
decision was based on the following:
(1) EPA does not want to create a
compensation schedule for facilities
planning or design services such as the
one contained in the American Society
of Civil Engineer's Manual No. 45. If
separate allowance tables were created
for advanced treatment projects,
innovative projects, value engineering
projects, or for different geographical
areas of the country, it would give the
impression that the allowance tables
could be used to determine the
compensation for services on these
types of projects.
(2) EPA does hot believe the amount
paid under the allowance procedures
would have any significant impact on
the effectiveness of the.VE program or
selection of I/A technologies. The I/A
program already has many incentives,
including a larger Federal share, lower
operational cost, and higher ranking on
the State's priority list. Similarly, EPA
believes that there are sufficient
safeguards and incentives contained in
the regulations to assure an effective VE
program.
•(3) Congress, in providing an
allowance for facilities plannning and
design, sought to achieve overall
program efficiencies. In doing so, the
Congress acknowledged the potential
for inequity in the allowance for an
individual project.
A number of commenters suggested
that the allowance tables be changed to
show the percentage for the Federal
share. Although this could simplify the
application of the allowance procedures,
this change could not be made because
the Federal share of a project is not
fixed. Therefore, the tables continue to
show the total allowance and EPA pays
the prevailing Federal share of that
figure.
The proposed allowance procedures
require that the allowance be based on
the allowable cost of building the
treatment works. Accordingly, the
allowance for a segment of a treatment
works was to be based on the
cumulative allowable building cost to
date minus any previous allowances.
We received comments from a number
of communities and from members of
the engineering profession stating that
this was not an equitable way to
determine the allowance. These
commenters said that in most cases
each segment stands alone, and for this
reason, the allowance should be based
only on the building cost of that
segment. Another commenter wrote that
the proposed procedure was more
complex, difficult to understand, and
different than the procedures generally
used in the engineering profession. It
was also pointed out that the analysis of
the historical cost information did not,
in many instances, represent the entire
cost of building the treatment works.
Because of these reasons EPA is
deleting the procedures that were
proposed fer determining the allowance
for segmented and phase funded
treatment works. In the future, the
allowance will be based on the
allowable building cost of each segment.
A number of commenters objected to
the adjustment of the allowance to
reflect the building cost one year after
substantial completion of the design
drawings and specifications. They argue
that since the allowance is not directly
related to the cost of facilities planning
and design, it should not be related to
the date of completion of such work.
EPA agrees with this logic. Accordingly,
the proposal to adjust the allowance to
reflect the date of completion of
facilities planning and design was
deleted from Appendix B.
In response to a number of comments
the allowance tables were expanded to
include projects with building cost less
then $100,000 and projects with building
cost between $100 million and $200
million.
One commenter suggested that all
references to the allowance being based
on an analysis of historical data be
removed from Appendix B because such
-------
6234 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday, February 17. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
a discussion cou|d give the impression
that the tables could be used to estimate
the actual facilities planning and design
cost. Since these references are not
needed to determine the allowance, and
because this preamble includes an
extensive discussion of the data and
analysis, these references have been
deleted from Appendix B.
Many commenters expressed concern
that the allowance tables in Appendix B
would be used by communities to
determine the amount to be paid to
architect/engineering firms for planning
and design services. As stated above,
the tables are not designed to be used as
a compensation schedule for facilities
planning or design services. In fact,
many variables, including demonstrated
competence, experience and
qualifications of the firms involved are
important factors in determining the
appropriate fees for architect/
engineering services. To reinforce this
fact, a "Note" to this effect has been
incorporated into Appendix B.
Regulation Development Process
This program is listed in the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance as
number 66.416—Construction Grants for
Wastewater Treatment Works.
Executive Order 12372 of July 14,1982,
detailed a State and local elected
official consultation process to replace
Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-95. EPA published a final
regulation on June 24,1983,
implementing this Executive Order (48
PR 29288).
Under Executive Order 12291 EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
regulatory impact analysis requirements
of the Order.,We are making these
changes to implement Pub. L. 96-483, the
October 21,1980 amendments to the
Clean Water Act, to reduce the
complexity of the regulation, and to
implement the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981 (Pub! L. 97-117). I
have determined this regulation is not a
major regulation as it will not have a
substantial impact on the nation's
economy or large numbers of individuals
or businesses. Thus it is not subject to
the impact analysis requirements of
Executive Order 12291.
Information collection requirements
contained in this regulation have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 LJ.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been
assigned OMB control number 2040-
0027.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601) I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule is designed to reduce
regulation burdens.to a minimum. The
revisions made clarify and simplify the
regulation, and reduce project costs.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 35
Air pollution control, Grant
programs—environmental protection,
Indiansr Pesticides and pests, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executiv ^rder
12291.
Dated: February 3,1984.
William D.Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
For the reasons outlined in the
preamble, 40 CFR Part 35 is amended by
revising Subpart I, to read as follows:
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Subpart I—Grant* for Construction of
Treatment Works
Sec.
35.2000 Purpose and policy.
35.2005 Definitions.
35.2010 Allotment; reallotment.
35.2015 State priority system and project
priority list.
35.2020 Reserves.
35.2021 Reallotment of reserves.
35.2023 Water quality management
planning.
35.2024 Combined sewer overflows.
35.2025 Allowance and advance of
allowance.
35.2030 Facilities planning.
35.2032 Innovative and alternative
technologies.
35.2034 Privately owned individual systems.
35.2040 Grant application.
35.2042 Review of grant applications.
35.2050 Effect of approval or certification of
documents.
35.2100 Limitations on award.
35.2101 Advanced treatment.
35.2102 Water quality management plans.
35.2103 Priority determination.
35.2104 Funding and other considerations.
35.2105 Debarment and suspension.
35.2106 Plan of operation.
35.2107 Intermunicipal service agreements.
35.2108 Phased, or segmented treatment
works.
35.2109 Step 2+3.
35.2110 Access to individual systems.
35.2111 Revised water quality standards.
35.2112 Marine discharge waiver applicants.
35.2113 Environmental review.
35.2114 Value engineering.
35.2116 Collection system.
35.2118 Preaward costs.
35.2120 Infiltration/inflow.
Sec.
35.2122 Approval of user charge system and
proposed sewer use ordinance.
35.2123 Reserve capacity.
35.2125 Treatment of wastewat'er from
industrial users.
35.2127 Federal facilities.
35.2130 Sewer use ordinance.
35.2140 User charge system.
35.2152 Federal share.
35.2200 Grant conditions.
35.2202 Step 2+3 projects.
35.2204 Project changes.
35.2206 Operation and maintenance.
35.2208 Adoption of sewer use ordinance
and user charge system.
35.2210 Land acquisition.
35.2211 Field testing for Innovative and
Alternative Technology Report.
35.2212 Project initiation.
35.2214 Grantee responsibilities.
35.2216 Notice of building completion and
final inspection.
35.2218 Project performance.
35.2250 Determination of allowable costs.
35.2260 Advance purchase of eligible land.
35.2262 Funding of field testing.
35.2300 Grant payments.
35.2350 Subagreement enforcement.
Appendix A—Determination of allowable
costs.
Appendix B—Allowance for facilities
planning and design.
Subpart I—Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works
Authority: Sees. 101(e), 109(b), 201 through
205, 207, 208(d), 210 through 212, 215 through
217, 304(d)(3), 313, 501, 502, 51} and 516(b) of
the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
§ 35.2000 Purpose and policy.
(a) The primary purpose of Federal
grant assistance available under this
subpart is to assist municipalities in
meeting enforceable requirements of the
Clean Water Act, particularly,
applicable National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements.
(b) This subpart supplements EPA's
Uniform Relocation and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act regulation (Part
4 of this chapter), its National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulation (Part 6 of this chapter), its
public participation regulation (Part 25
of this chapter), its intergovernmental
review regulation (Part 29 of this
chapter), its general grant regulation
(Part 30 of this subchapter), its
debarment regulation (Part 32 of this
subchapter), and its procurement under
assistance regulation (Part 33 of this
subchapter), and establishes
requirements for Federal grant
assistance for the building of
wastewater treatment works. EPA may
also find it necessary to publish other
requirements applicable to the
construction grants program in response
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
6235
to Congressional action and executive
orders.
(c) EPA's policy is to delegate
administration of the construction grants
program on individual projects to State
agencies to the maximum extent
possible (see Subpart F). Throughout
this subpart we have used the term
Regional Administrator. To the extent
that the Regional Administrator
delegates review of projects for
compliance with the requirements of this
subpart to a State agency under a
delegation agreement (§ 35.1030), the
term Regional Administrator may be
read State agency. This paragraph does
not affect the rights of citizens,
applicants or grantees provided in
Subpart F.
(d) In accordance with the Federal
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
(Pub. L. 95-224) EPA will, when
substantial Federal involvement is
anticipated, award assistance under
cooperative agreements. Throughout this
subpart we have used the terms grant
and grantee but those terms may be
read cooperative agreement and
recipient if appropriate.
(e) From time to time EPA publishes
technical and guidance materials on
various topics relevant to the
construction grants program. Grantees
may find this information useful in
meeting requirements in this subpart.
These publications, including the MCD
and FRD series, may be ordered from:
EPA, 401 M St. SW, Room 1115 ET, WH
547, Washington, DC 20460. In order to
expedite processing of requests, persons
wishing to obtain these publications
should request a copy of EPA form 7500-
21 (the order form listing all available
publications), from EPA Headquarters,
Municipal Construction Division (WH-
547) or from any EPA Regional Office.
§ 35.2005 Definitions.
(a) Words and terms not defined
below shall have the meaning given to
them in 40 CFR Parts 30 and 33.
(b) As used in this subpart, the
following words and terms mean:
(1) Act. The Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended).
(2) Ad valorem tax. A tax based upon
the value of real property.
{3) Allowance. An amount based on a
percentage of the project's allowable
building cost, computed in accordance
with Appendix B.
(4) Alternative technology. Proven
wastewater treatment processes and
techniques which provide for the
reclaiming and reuse of water,
productively recycle wastewater
constituents or otherwise eliminate the
discharge of pollutants, or recover
energy. Specifically, alternative
technology includes land application of
effluent and sludge; aquifer recharge;
aquaculture; direct reuse (non-potable);
horticulture; revegetation of disturbed
land; containment ponds; sludge
composting and drying prior to land
application; self-sustaining incineration;
methane recovery; individual and onsite
systems; and small diameter pressure
and vacuum sewers and small diameter
gravity sewers carrying partially or fully
treated wastewater.
(5) Alternative to conventional
treatment wQrks for a small community.
For purposes of §§ 35.2020 and 35.2032 a
treatment works in a small community
using innovative or alternative
technology.
(6) Architectural or engineering
services. Consultation, investigations,
reports, or services for design-type
projects within the scope of the practice
of architecture or professional
engineering as defined by the laws of
the State or territory in which the
grantee is located.
(7) Best Practicable Waste Treatment
Technology (BPWTT). The cost-
effective technology that can treat
wastewater, combined sewer overflows
and nonexcessive infiltration and inflow
in publicly owned or individual
wastewater treatment works, to meet
the applicable provisions of:
(i) 40 CFR Part 133—secondary
treatment of wastewater;
(ii) 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G—
marine discharge waivers;
(iii) 40 CFR 122.44(d)—more stringent
water quality standards and State
standards; or
(iv) 41 FR 6190 (February 11,1976)—
Alternative Waste Management
Techniques for Best Practicable Waste
Treatment (treatment and discharge,
land application techniques and
utilization practices, and reuse).
(8) Building. The erection, acquisition,
alteration, remodeling, improvement or
extension of treatment works.
(9) Building completion. The date
when all but minor components of a
project have been built, all equipment is
operational and the project is capable of
functioning as designed.
(10) Collector sewer. The common
lateral sewers, within a publicly owned
treatment system, which are primarily
installed to receive wastewaters directly
from facilities which convey wastewater
from individual systems, or from private
property, and which include service "Y"
connections designed for connection
with those facilities including:
(i) Crossover sewers connecting more
than one property on one side of a major
street, road, or highway to a lateral
sewer on the other side when more cost
effective than parallel sewers; and
(ii) Except as provided in (b)(10)(iii) of
this section, pumping units and
pressurized lines serving individual
structures or groups of structures when
such units are cost effective and are
owned and maintained by the grantee.
(iii) This definition excludes other
facilities which convey wastewater from
individual structures, from private
property to the public lateral sewer, or
its equivalent and also excludes
facilities associated with alternatives to
conventional treatment works in small
communities.
(11) Combined sewer. A sewer that is
designed as a sanitary sewer and a
storm sewer.
(12) Complete waste treatment
system. A complete waste treatment
system consists of all the treatment
works necessary to meet the
requirements of title III of the Act,
involving: (i) The transport of
wastewater from individual homes or
buildings to a plant or facility where
treatment of the wastewater is
accomplished; (ii) the treatment of the
wastewater to remove pollutants; and
(iii) the ultimate disposal, including
recycling or reuse, of the treated
wastewater and residues which result
from the treatment process.
(13,) Construction. Any one or more of
the following: Preliminary planning to
determine the feasibility of treatment
works, engineering, architectural, legal,
fiscal, or economic investigations or
studies, surveys, designs, plans, working
drawings, specifications, procedures,
field testing of innovative or alternative
wastewater treatment processes and
techniques (excluding operation and
maintenance) meeting guidelines
promulgated under section 304(d)(3) of
the Act, or other necessary actions,
erection, building, acquisition,
alteration, remodeling, improvement, or
extension of treatment works, or the
inspection or supervision of any of the
foregoing items.
(14) Conventional technology.
Wastewater treatment processes and
techniques involving the treatment of
wastewater at a centralized treatment
plant by means of biological or
physical/chemical unit processes
followed by direct point source
discharge to surface waters.
(15) Enforceable requirements of the
Act. Those conditions or limitations of
section 402 or 404 permits which, if
violated, could result in the issuance of
a compliance order or initiation of a
civil or criminal action under section 309
of the Act or applicable State laws. If a
permit has not been issued, the term
shall include any requirement which, in
the Regional Administrator's judgment,
-------
6236
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
would be included in the permit when
issued. Where no permit applies, the
term shall include any requirement
which the Regional Administrator
determines is necessary for the best
practicable waste treatment technology
to meet applicable criteria.
(16J Excessive infiltration/inflow. The
quantities of infiltration/inflow which
can be economically eliminated from a
sewer system as determined in a cost-
effectiveness analysis that compares the
costs for correcting the infiltration/
inflow conditions to the total costs for
transportation and treatment of the
infiltration/inflow. (See
§§ 35.2005(b)(28), (b}(29) and 35.2120).
(17) Field testing. Practical and
generally small-scale testing of
innovative or alternative technologies
directed to verifying performance and/
or refining design parameters not
sufficiently tested to resolve technical
uncertainties which prevent the funding
of a promising improvement in
innovative or alternative treatment
technology.
(18) Individual systems. Privately
owned alternative wastewater
treatment works (including dual
waterless/gray water systems) serving
one or more principal residences, or
small commercial establishments.
Normally these are onsite systems with
localized treatment and disposal of
wastewater, but may be systems
utilizing small diameter gravity, pressure
or vacuum sewers conveying treated or
partially treated wastewater. These
systems can also include small diameter
gravity sewers carrying raw wastewater
to cluster systems.
(19) Industrial user. Any
nongovernmental, nonresidential user of
a publicly owned treatment works
which is identified in the Standard
Industrial Classification Manual, 1972,
Office: of Management and Budget, as
amended and supplemented, under one
of the following divisions:
Division A. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing
Division B. Mining
Division D. Manufacturing
Division E. Transportation, Communications,
Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services
Division I. Services
(20) Infiltration. Water other than
wastewater that enters a sewer system
(including sewer service connections
and foundation drains) from the ground
through such means as defective pipes,
pipe joints, connections, or manholes.
Infiltration does not include, and is
distinguished from, inflow.
(21) Inflow. Water other than
wastewater that enters a sewer system
(including sewer service connections)
from sources such as, but not limited to,
roof leaders, cellar drains, yard drains,
area drains, drains from springs and
swampy areas, manhole covers, cross
connections between storm sewers/and
sanitary sewers, catch basins, cooling
towers, storm waters, surface runoff,
street wash waters, or drainage. Inflow
does not include, and is distinguished
from, infiltration.
(22) Initiation of operation. The date
specified by the grantee on which use of
the project begins for the purposes that
it was planned, designed, and built.
(23) Innovative technology. Developed
wastewater treatment processes and
techniques which have not been fully
proven under the circumstances of their
contemplated use and which represent a
significant advancement ovef the state
of the art in terms of significant
reduction in life cycle cost or
significant environmental benefits
through the reclaiming and reuse of
water, otherwise eliminating the
discharge of pollutants, utilizing
recycling techniques such as land
treatment, more efficient use of energy
and resources, improved or new
methods of waste treatment
management for combined municipal
and industrial systems, or the confined
disposal of pollutants so that they will
not migrate to cause water or other
environmental pollution.
(24) Interceptor sewer. A sewer which
is designed for one or more of the
following purposes:
(i) To intercept wastewater from a
final point in a collector sewer and
convey such wastes directly to a
treatment facility or another interceptor.
(ii) To replace an existing wastewater
treatment facility and transport the
wastes to an adjoining collector sewer
or interceptor sewer for conveyance to a
treatment plant.
(iii) To transport wastewater from one
or more municipal collector sewers to
another municipality or to a regional
plant for treatment.
(iv) To intercept an existing major
discharge of raw or inadequately treated
wastewater for transport directly to
another interceptor or to a treatment
plant.
(25) Interstate agency. An agency of
two or more States established under an
agreement or compact approved by the
Congress, or any other agency of two or
more States, having substantial powers
or duties pertaining to the control of
water prllution.
(26) Marine bays and estuaries. Semi-
enclosed coastal waters which have a
free connection to the territorial sea.
(27) Municipality. A city, town,
borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body
(including an intermunicipal agency of
two oi> more of the foregoing entities)
created under State law, or an Indian
tribe or an authorized Indian tribal
organization, having jurisdiction over
disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or
other waste, or a designated and
approved management agency under
section 208 of the Act.
(i) This definition includes a special
district created under State law such as
a water district, sewer district, sanitary
district, utility district, drainage district
or similar entity or an integrated waste
management facility, as defined in
section 201(e) of the Act, which has as
one of its principal responsibilities the
treatment, transport, or disposal of
domestic wastewater in a particular
geographic area.
(ii) This definition excludes the
following:
(A) Any revenue producing entity
which has as its principal responsibility
an activity other than providing
wastewater treatment services to the
general public, such as an airport,
turnpike, port facility or other municipal
utility.
(B) Any special district (such as
school district or a park district) which
has the responsibility to provide
wastewater treatment services in
support of its principal activity at
specific facilities, unless the special
district has the responsibility under
State law to provide wastewater
treatment services to the community
surrounding the special district's facility
and no other municipality, with
concurrent jurisdiction to serve the
community, serves or intends to serve
the special district's facility or the
surrounding community.
(28) Nonexcessive infiltration. The
quantity of flow which is less than 120
gallons per capita per day (domestic
base flow and infiltration) or the
quantity of infiltration which cannot be
econpmically and effectively eliminated
from a sewer system as determined in a
cost-effectiveness analysis. (See
§§ 35.2005(b)(16) and 35.2120.)
(29) Nonexcessive inflow. The rainfall
induced peak inflow rate which does not
result in chronic operational problems
related to hydraulic overloading of the
treatment works during storm events.
These problems may include
surcharging, backups, bypasses, and
overflows. (See §§ 35.2005(b)(16) and
35.2120.)
(30) Operation and Maintenance.
Activities required to assure the
dependable and economical function of
treatment works.
(i) Maintenance: Preservation of
functional integrity and efficiency of
equipment and structures. This includes
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday. February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6237
preventive maintenance, corrective
maintenance and replacement of
equipment (See § 35.2005(b)(36)) as
needed.)
(iij Operation: Control of the unit
processes and equipment which make
up the treatment works. This includes
financial and personnel management;
records, laboratory control, process
control, safety and emergency operation
planning.
(31) Principal residence. For the
purposes of § 35.2034, the habitation of a
family or household for at least 51
percent of the year. Second homes,
vacation or recreation residences are
not included in this definition.
(32) Project. The activities or tasks the
Regional Administrator identifies in the
grant agreement for which the grantee
may expend, obligate or commit funds.
(33) Project performance standards.
The performance and operations
requirements applicable to a project
including the enforceable requirements
of the Act and the specifications,
including the quantity of excessive
infiltration and inflow proposed to be
eliminated, which the project is planned
and designed to meet.
(34) Priority water quality areas. For
the purposes of § 35.2015, specific
stream segments or bodies of water, as
determined by the State, where
municipal discharges have resulted in
the impairment of a designated use or
significant public health risks, and
where the reduction of pollution from
such discharges will substantially
restore surface or groundwater uses.
(35) Project schedule. A timetable
specifying the dates of key project
events including public notices of
proposed procurement actions,
subagreement awards, issuance of
notice to proceed with building, key
milestones in the building schedule,
completion of building, initiation of
operation and certification of the
project.
(36) Replacement. Obtaining and
installing equipment, accessories, or
appurtenances which are necessary
during the design or useful life,
whichever is longer, of the treatment
works to maintain the capacity and
performance for whiqh such works were
designed and constructed.
(37) Sanitary sewer. A conduit
intended to carry liquid and water-
carried wastes from residences,
commercial buildings, industrial plants
and institutions together with minor
quantities of ground, storm and surface
waters that are not admitted
intentionally.
(38) Services. A contractor's labor,
time or efforts which do not involve the
delivery of a specific end item, other
than documents (e.g., reports, design
drawings, specifications). This term
does not include employment
agreements or collective bargaining
agreements.
(39) Small commercial
establishments. For purposes of
§ 35.2034 private establishments such as
restaurants, hotels, stores, filling
stations, or recreational facilities and
private, nonprofit entities such as
churches, schools, hospitals, or
charitable organizations with dry
weather wastewater flows less than
25,000 gallons per day.
(40) Small community. For purposes of
§§ 35.2020(b) and 35.2032, any
municipality with a population of 3,500
or less, or highly dispersed sections of
large municipalities, as determined by
the Regional Administrator.
(41) State. A State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas. For the purposes of applying
for a grant under section 201(g)(l) of the
act, a State (including its agencies) is
subject to the limitations on revenue
producing entities and special districts
contained in 135.2005(b)(27)(ii).
(42) State agency. The State agency
designated by the Governor having
responsibility for administration of the
construction grants program under
section 205(g) of the Act.
(43) Step 1. Facilities planning.
(44) Step 2. Preparation of design
drawings and specifications.
(45) Step 3. Building of a treatment
works and related services and supplies.
(46) Step 2+3. Design and building of,
a treatment works and building related
services and supplies.
(47) Storm sewer. A sewer designed to
carry only storm waters, surface run-off,
street wash waters, and drainage.
(48) Treatment works. Any devices
and systems for the storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of municipal
sewage, domestic sewage, or liquid
industrial wastes used to implement
section 201 of the Act, or necessary to
recycle or reuse water at the most
economical cost over the design life of
the Works. These include intercepting
sewers, outfall sewers, sewage
collection systems, individual systems,
pumping, power, and other equipment
and their appurtenances; extensions,
improvement, remodeling, additions,
and alterations thereof; elements
essential to provide a reliable recycled
supply such as standby treatment units
and clear well facilities; and any works,
including acquisition of the land that
will be an integral part of the treatment
process or is used for ultimate disposal
of residues resulting from such
treatment (including land for composting
sludge, temporary storage of such
compost and land used for the storage of
treated wastewater in land treatment
systems before land application); or any
other method or system for preventing,
abating, reducing, storing, treating,
separating, or disposing of municipal
waste or industrial waste, including
waste in combined storm water and
sanitary sewer systems.
(49) Treatment works phase or
segment. A treatment works phase or
segment may be any substantial portion
of a facility and its interceptors
described in a facilities plan under
135.2030, which can be identified as a
subagreement or discrete subitem.
Multiple subagreements under a project
shall not be considered to be segments
or phases. Completion of building of a
treatment works phase or segment may,
but need not in and of itself, result in an
operable treatment works.
(50) Useful life. The period during
which a treatment works operates. (Not
"design life" which is the period during
which a treatment works is planned and
designed to be operated.)
(51) User charge. A charge levied on
users of a treatment 'works, or that
portion of the ad valorem taxes paid by
a user, for the user's proportionate share
of the cost of operation and'
maintenance (including replacement) of
such works under sections 204(b)(l](A)
and 201(h)(2) of the Act and this
subpart.
(52) Value engineering. A specialized
cost control technique which uses a
systematic and creative approach to
identify and to focus on unnecessarily
high cost in a project in order to arrive
at a cost saving without sacrificing the
reliability or efficiency of the project.
§ 35.2010 Allotment; realtotment
(a) Allotments are made on a formula
or other basis which Congress specifies
for each fiscal year (FY). The allotment
for each State and the availability
period shall be announced each fiscal
year in the Federal Register. This
section applies only to funds allotted
under section 205 of the Act.
(b) Unless otherwise provided by
Congress, all sums allotted to a State
under section 205 of the Act shall
remain available for obligation until the
end of one year after the close of the
fiscal year for which the sums were
appropriated. Except as provided in
| 35.2020)(a), sums not obligated a't the
end of that period shall be subject to
reallotment on the basis of the same
ratio as applicable to the then-current
-------
6238 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday, February 17. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
fiscal year, but none of the funds
reallotted shall be made available to
any State which failed to obligate any of
the fiscal year funds being reallotted.
Any sum made available to a State by
reallotment under this section shall be
in addition to any funds otherwise
allotted to such State for grants under
this subpart during any fiscal year and
the reallotted funds shall remain
available for obligation until the last day
of the fiscal year following the fiscal
year in which the reallotted funds are
issued by the Comptroller to the
Regional Administrator.
(c) Except for funds appropriated for
FY 72 and fiscal years prior to 1972,
sums which are deobligated and
reissued by the Comptroller to the
Regional Administrator before their
reallotment date shall be available for
obligation in the same State and treated
in the same manner as the allotment
from which such funds were derived.
(d) Except for funds appropriated for
FY 72 and fiscal years prior to 1972,
deobligated sums which are reissued by
the Comptroller to the Regional
Administrator after their reallotment
date shall be available for obligation in
the same State until the last day of the
fiscal year following the fiscal year in
which the reissuance occurs.
(e) Deobligated FY 72 and prior to
1972 fiscal year funds, except 1964,1965
and 1966 funds, wi,ll be credited to the
allowances of the same Region from
which such funds are recovered, and the
Regional Administrator may determine
how these recoveries are credited to the
States within the Region.
§ 35.2015 State priority system and
project priority list
(a) General. The Regional
Administrator will award grant
assistance from annual allotments to
projects on a State project priority list
developed in accordance with an
approved State priority system. The
State priority system and list must be
designed to achieve optimum water
quality management consistent with the
goals and requirements of the Act. All
projects for building treatment works to
be funded by EPA must be included on a
State project priority list, except training
facilities funded under section 109(b) of
the Act and marine CSO projects 'funded
under section 201 (n)(2) of the Act.
(b) State priority system. The State
priority system describes the
methodology used to rank projects that
are considered eligible for assistance.
The priority system should give high
priority to projects 1n priority water
quality areas. The priority system may
also include the administrative,
management, and public participation
procedures required to develop and
revise the State project priority list. The
priority system includes at least the
following elements:
(1) Criteria, (i) The priority system
shall include at least the following
criteria for ranking projects:
(A) The impairment of classified
water uses resulting from existing
municipal pollutant discharges; and
(B) The extent of surface or ground
water use restoration or public health
improvement resulting from the
reduction in pollution.
(ii) The State may also include other
criteria in its priority system for ranking
projects, such as the use of innovative or
alternative technology, the need to
complete a. waste treatment system for
which a grant for a phase or segment
was previously awarded; and the
category of need and the existing
population affected.
(iii) In ranking phased and segmented
projects States must comply with
§ 35.2108.
(2) Categories of need All projects
must fit into at least one of the
categories of need described in this
paragraph to be eligible for funding,
except as provided in paragraphs
(b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
States will have sole authority to
determine the priority for each category
of need.
(i) Before October 1,1984, these
categories of need shall include at least
the following:
(A) Secondary treatment (category I);
(B) Treatment more stringent than
secondary (category II);
(C) Infiltration/inflow correction
(category IIIA);
,(D) Major sewer system rehabilitation
(category HIB);
(E) New collector sewers and
appurtenances (category IVA);
(F) New interceptors and
appurtenances (category IVBJ;
(G) Correction of combined sewer
overflows (category V).
(ii) After September 30,1984, except
as provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and
(b)(2)(iv) of this section, these categories
of need shall include only the following:
(A) Secondary treatment or any cost-
effective alternative;
(B) Treatment more stringent than
secondary or any cost-effective
alternative;
(C) New interceptors and
appurtenances; and
(D) Infiltration/inflow correction.
(iii) After September 30,1984, up to 20
percent (as determined by the Governor)
of a State's annual allotment may be
used for categories of need other than
those listed in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(iv) After September 30,1984, the
Governor may include in the priority
system a category for projects needed to
correct combined sewer overflows
which result in impaired uses in priority
water quality areas. Only projects which
comply with the requirements of
§ 35.2024(a) may be included in this
category.
(c) Project priority list. The State's
annual project priority list is an ordered
•listing of projects for which the State
expects Federal financial assistance.
The priority list contains two portions:
the fundable portion, consisting of those
projects anticipated to be funded from
funds available for obligation; and the
planning portion, consisting of projects
anticipated to be funded from future
authorized allotments.
(1) The State shall develop the project
priority list consistent with the criteria
established in the approved priority
system. In ranking projects, the State
must also consider total funds available,
needs and priorities set forth in
areawide water quality management
plans, and any other factors contained
in the State priority system.
(2) The list shall include an estimate
of the eligible cost of each project.
(d] Public participation. (1) hi
addition to any requirements in 40 CFR
Part 25, the State shall hold .public
hearings as follows:
(i) Before submitting its priority
system to the Regional Administrator for
approval and before adopting any
significant change to an approved
priority system; and
(ii) Before submitting its annual
project priority list to the Regional
Administrator for acceptance and before
revising its priority list unless the State
agency and the Regional Administrator
determine that the revision is not
significant.
(iii) If the approved State priority
system contains procedures for
bypassing projects.on the fundable
portion of the priority list, such bypasses
will not be significant revisions for
purposes of this section.
(2) Public hearings may be conducted
as directed in the State's continuing
planning process document or may be
held jn conjunction with any regular
public meeting of the State agency.
(e) Regional Administrator review.
The State must submit its priority
system, project priority list and
revisions of the priority system or
priority list to the Regional
Administrator for review. The State
must also submit each year, by August
31, a new priority list for use in the next
fiscal year.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday. February 17, .1984 / Rules and Regulations 6239
(1) After submission and approval of
the initial priority system and
submission and acceptance of the
project priority lists under paragraph (c)
of this section, the State may revise its
priority .system and list as necessary.
(2) The regional Administrator shall
review the State priority system and any
revisions to insure that they are
designed to obtain compliance with the
criteria established in accordance with
paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section
and the enforceable requirements of the
Act as defined in § 35.2005(b)(15). The
Regional Administrator shall complete
review of the priority system within 30
days of receipt of the system from the
State and will notify the State in writing
of approval or disapproval of the
priority system, stating any reasons for
disapproval.
(3) The Regional Administrator will
review the project priority list and any
revisions to insure compliance with the
State's approved priority system and the
requirements of paragraph (c] of this
section. The Regional Administrator will
complete review of the project priority
list within 30 days of receipt from the
State and will notify the State in writing
of acceptance or rejection, stating the
reasons for the rejection. Any project
which is not contained on an accepted
current priority list will not receive
funding.
(f) Compliance with the enforceable
requirements of. the Act. (I) Except as
limited under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section, the Regional Administrator,
after a public hearing, shall require the
removal of a specific project or portion
thereof from the State project priority
list if the Regional Administrator
determines it will not contribute to
compliance with the enforceable
requirements of the Act.
(2) The Regional Administrator shall
not require removal of projects in
categories under paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(D)
through (b)(2)(i)(G) of this section which
do not meet the, enforceable
requirements of the Act unless the total
Federal share of such projects would
exceed 25 percent of the State's annual
allotment.
§35.2020 Reserves.
In developing its priority list the State
shall establish the reserves required or
authorized under this section. The
amount of each mandatory reserve shall
be based on the allotment to each State
from the annual appropriation under
§ 35.2010. The State may also establish
other reserves which it determines
appropriate.
(a) Reserve for State management
assistance grants. Each State may
request that the Regional Administrator
reserve, from the State's annual
allotment, up to 4 percent of the State's
allotment based on the amount
authorized to be appropriated, or
$400,000, whichever is greater, for State
management assistance grants under
Subpart F of this part. Grants may be
made from these funds to cover the
costs of administering activities
delegated or scheduled to be delegated
to a State. Funds reserved for this
purpose that are obligated by the end of
the allotment period will be added to the
amounts last allotted to a State. These
funds shall be immediately available for
obligation to projects in the same
manner and to the same extent as the
last allotment.
(b) Reserve for alternative systems for
small communities. Each State with 25
percent or more rural population (as
determined by population estimates of
the Bureau of Census) shall reserve 4
percent of the State's annual allotment
for alternatives to conventional
treatment works for small communities.
The Governor of any non-rural State
may reserve up to 4 percent of that
State's allotment for the same purpose.
(c) Reserve for innovative and
alternative technologies. Each State
shall reserve not less than 4 percent nor
more than 7Vfe percent from its annual
allotment to increase the Federal share
of grant awards under § 35.2032 for
projects which use innovative or
alternative wastewater treatment
processes and techniques. Of this
amount not less than one-half of one
percent of the State's allotment shall be
set aside to increase the Federal share
for projects using innovative processes
and techniques.
(d) Reserve for water quality
management. Each' State shall reserve
not less than $100,000 nor more than 1
percent from its annual allotments, to
carry out water quality management
planning under § 35.2023, except that in
the case of Guam, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands and the
Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas, a reasonable amount shall be
reserved for this purpose.
(e) Reserve for Advances of
Allowance. Each State shall reserve a
reasonable portion of its annual
allotment not to exceed 10 percent for
advances of allowance under § 35.2025.
The Regional Administrator may waive
this reserve requirement where a State
can demonstrate that such a reserve is
not necessary because no new facilities
planning or design work requiring an
advance and resulting in Step 3 grant
awards is expected to begin during the
period of availability of the annual
allotment.
§ 35.2021 Reallotment of reserves.
(a) Mandatory portions of reserves
under § 35.2020(b) through (e) shall be
reallotted if not obligated during the
allotment period. The State management
assistance reserve under § 35.2020(a) is
not subject to reallotment.
(b) States may request the Regional
Administrator to release funds in
optional reserves or optional portions of
required reserves under § 35.2020(b)
through (e) for funding projects at any
time before the reallotment date. If these
optional reserves are not obligated or
released and obligated for other
purposes before the reallotment date,
they shall be subject to reallotment
under § 35.2010(b).
(c) Sums deobligated from the
mandatory portion of reserves under
paragraphs (b) through (e) of § 35.2020
which are reissued by the Comptroller
to the Regional Administrator before the
initial reallotment date for those funds
shall be returned to the same reserve.
(See § 35.2010.)
§ 35.2023 Water quality management
planning.
(a) From funds reserved under
§ 35.2020(d) the Regional Administrator
shall make grants to the States to carry
out water quality management planning
including but not limited to:
(1) Identifying the most cost-effective
and locally acceptable facility and non-
point measures to meet and maintain
water quality standards;
(2) Developing an implementation
plan to obtain State and local financial
and regulatory commitments to
implement measures developed under
paragraph (a)(l);
(3) Determining the nature, extent and
causes of water quality problems in
various areas of the State and interstate
region, and reporting on these annually;
and
(4) Determining which publicly owned
treatment works should be constructed,
in which areas and in what sequence,
taking into account the relative degree
of effluent reduction attained, the
relative contributions to water quality of
other point or nonpoint sources, and the
consideration of alternatives to such
construction, and implementing section
303(e) of the Act.
(b) In carrying out planning with
grants made under paragraph (a), a
State shall develop jointly with local,
regional and interstate entities, a plan
for carrying out the program and give
funding priority to such entities and
designated or undesignated public
comprehensive planning organizations
to carry out the purposes of this section.
-------
6240 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
§ 35.2024 Combined sewer overflows.
(a) Grant assistance from State
allotment. As provided in
§ 35.2015(b)(2)(iv), after September 30,
1984, upon request from a State, the
Administrator may award a grant under
section 201(n){l) of the Act from the
State allotment for correction of
combined sewer overflows provided
that the project is on the project priority
list, it addresses impaired uses in
priority water quality areas which are
due to the impacts of the combined
sewer overflows and otherwise meets
the requirements of this subpart. The
State must demonstrate to the
Administrator that the water quality
goals of the Act will not be achieved
without correcting the combined sewer
overflows. The demonstration shall as a
minimum prove that significant usage of
the water for fishing and swimming will
not be; possible without the proposed
project, and that the project will result
in substantial restoration of an existing
impaired use.
(b) Separate fund for combined sewer
overflows in marine waters. (1) After
September 30,1982, the Administrator
may award grants under section
201(n](2) of the Act for addressing
impaired uses or public health risks in
priority water quality areas in marine
bays and estuaries due to the impacts of
combined sewer overflows. The
Administrator may award such grants
provided that the water quality benefits
of the proposed project have been
demonstrated by the State. The
demonstration shall as a minimum prove
that significant usage of the water for
shellfishing and swimming will not be
possible without the proposed project
for correction of combined sewer
overflows, and the proposed project will
result in substantial restoration of an
existing impaired use.
(2) The Administrator shall establish
priorities for projects with demonstrated
water quality benefits based upon the
following criteria:
(i) Extent of water use benefits that
would result, including swimming and
shellfishing;
(ii) Relationship of water quality
improvements to project costs; and
(iii] National and regional
significance.
(3) If the project is a phase or segment
of the proposed treatment works
'described in the facilities plan, the
criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section must be applied to the treatment
works described in the facilities plan
and each segment proposed for funding.
(4) All requirements of this Subpart
apply to grants awarded under section
201(n)(2) of the Act except §§ 35.2010,
35.2015, 35.2020, 35.2021, 35.2025(b),
35.2042, 35.2103, 35.2109, and 35.2202.
§ 35.2025 Allowance and advance of
allowance.
(a) Allowance. Step 2+3 and Step 3
grant agreements will include an
allowance for facilities planning and
design of the project to be determined in
accordance with Appendix B of this
subpart.
(b) Advance of allowance to potential
grant applicants. (1) After application
by the State (see § 35.2040(d)), the
Regional Administrator will award a
grant to the State in the amount of the
reserve under § 35.2020(e) to advance
allowances to potential grant applicants
for facilities planning and project
design.
(2) The State may request that the
right to receive payments under the
grant, be assigned to specified potential
grant applicants.
(3) The State may provide advances of
allowance only to small communities, as
defined by the State, which would
otherwise be unable to complete an
application for a grant under § 35.2040 in
the judgment of the State.
(4) The advance shall not exceed the
Federal share of the estimate of the
allowance for such costs which a
grantee would receive under paragraph
(a) of this section.
(5) In the event a Step 2+3 or Step 3
grant is not awarded to a recipient of an
advance, the State may seek repayment
of the advance on such terms and
conditions as it may determine. When a
State recovers such advances they shall
be added to its most recent grant for
advances of allowance.
§ 35.2030 Faculties planning.
(a) General. (1) Facilities planning
consists of those necessary plans and
studies which directly relate to
treatment works needed to comply with
enforceable requirements of the Act.
Facilities planning will investigate the
need for proposed facilities. Through a
systematic evaluation of alternatives
that are feasible in light of the unique
demographic, topographic, hydrologic
and institutional characteristics of the
area, it will demonstrate that, except for
innovative and alternative technology
under § 35.2032, the selected alternative
is cost effective (i.e., is the most
economical means of meeting the
applicable effluent, water quality and
public health requirements Over the
design life of the facility while
recognizing environmental and other
non-monetary considerations). For
sewered communities with a population
of 10,000 or less, consideration must be
given to appropriate low cost
technologies such as facultative ponds,
trickling filters, oxidation ditches, or
overland-flow land treatment; and for
unsewered portions of communities of
10,000 or less, consideration must be
given to onsite systems. The facilities
plan will also demonstrate that the
selected alternative is implementable
from legal, institutional, financial and
management standpoints.
(2) Grant assistance may be awarded
before certification of the completed
facilities plan if:
(i) The Regional Administrator
determines that applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements (including Part
6) have been met; that the facilities
planning related to the project has been
substantially completed; and that the
project for which grant assistance is
awarded will not be significantly
affected by the completion of the
facilities plan and will be a component
part of the complete waste treatment
system; and
(ii) The applicant agrees to complete
the facilities plan on a schedule the
State accepts and such schedule is
inserted as a special condition of the
grant agreement.
(b) Facilities plan contents. A
completed facilities plan must include:
(1) A description of both the proposed
treatment works, and the complete
waste treatment system of which it is a
part.
(2) A description of the Best
Practicable Wastewater Treatment
Technology. (See § 35.2005(b)(7).)
(3) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the
feasible conventional, innovative and
alternative wastewater treatment
works, processes and, techniques
capable of meeting the applicable
effluent, water quality and public health
requirements over the design life of the
facility while recognizing environmental
and other non-monetary considerations.
The planning period for the cost-
effectiveness analysis shall be 20 years.
The monetary costs to be considered
must include the present worth or
equivalent annual value of all capital
costs and operation and maintenance
costs. The discount rate established by
EPA for the construction grants program
shall be used in the cost-effectiveness
analysis.vThe population forecasting in
the analysis shall be consistent with the
current Needs Survey. A cost-
effectiveness analysis must include:
(i) An evaluation of alternative flow
reduction methods. (If the grant
applicant demonstrates that the existing
average daily base flow (ADBF) from
the area is less than 70 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd), or if the Regional
Administrator determines the area has
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6241
an effective existing flow reduction
program, additional flow reduction
evaluation is not required.)
(ii) A description of the relationship
between the capacity of alternatives and
the needs to be served, including
capacity for future growth expected
after the treatment works become
operational. This includes letters of
intent from significant industrial users
and all industries intending to increase
their flows or relocate in the area
documenting capacity needs and
characteristics for existing or projected
flows;
(iii) An evaluation of improved
effluent quality attainable by upgrading
the operation and maintenance and
efficiency of existing facilities as an
alternative or supplement to
construction of new facilities;
(iv) An evaluation of the alternative
methods for the reuse or ultimate
disposal of treated wastewater and
sludge material resulting from the
treatment process;
(v) A consideration of systems with
revenue generating applications;
(vi) An evaluation of opportunities to
reduce use of, or recover energy;
(vii) Cost information on total capital
costs, and annual operation and
maintenance costs, as well as estimated
annual or monthly costs to residential
and industrial users.
(4) A demonstration of the non-
existence or possible existence of
excessive inflitration/inflow in the
sewer system. See § 35.2120.
(5) An analysis of the potential open
space and recreation opportunities
associated with the project.
(6) An adequate evaluation of the
environmental impacts of alternatives
under Part 6 of this chapter.
(7) An evaluation of the water supply
implications of the project.
(8) For the selected alternative, a
concise description at an appropriate
level of detail, of at least the following:
(i) Relevant design parameters;
(ii) Estimated capital construction and
operation and maintenance costs,
(identifying the Federal, State and local
shares), and a description of,the manner
in which local costs will be financed;
(iii) Estimated cost of future
expansion and long-term needs for
reconstruction of facilities following
their design life;
(iv) Cost impacts on wastewater
system users; and
(v) Institutional and management
arrangements necessary for successful
implementation.
(c) Submission and review of facilities
plan. Each facilities plan must be
submitted to the State for review. EPA
recommends that potential grant
applicants confer with State reviewers
early in the facilities planning process.
In addition, a potential grant applicant
may request in writing from the State
and EPA an early determination under
Par,t 6 of this chapter of the
appropriateness of a categorical
exclusion from NEPA requirements, the
scope of the environmental information
document or the early preparation of an
environmental impact statement.
§ 35.2032 Innovative and alternative
technologies.
(a) Funding for innovative and
alternative technologies. Projects or
portions of projects using unit processes
or techniques which the Regional
Administrator determines to be
innovative or alternative technology
shall receive increased grants under
§ 35.2152.
(1) Only funds from the reserve in
§ 35.2020(c) shall be used to increase
these grants.
(2) If the project is an alternative to
conventional treatment works for a
small community, funds from the reserve
in § 35.2020(b) may be used for the 75
percent portion, or any lower Federal
share of the grant as determined under
§ 35.2152.
(b) Cost-effectiveness preference. The
Regional Administrator may award
grant assistance for a treatment works
or portion of a treatment works using
innovative or alternative technologies if
the total present worth cost of the
treatment works for which the grant is
to be made does not exceed the total
present worth cost of the most cost-
effective alternative by more than 15
percent.
(1) Privately-owned individual
systems (§ 35.2034) are not eligible for
this preference.
(2) If the present worth costs of the
innovative or alternative unit processes
are 50 percent or less of the present
worth cost of the treatment works, the
cost-effectiveness preference applies
only to the innovative or alternative
components.
(c) Modification or replacement of
innovative and alternative projects. The
Regional Administrator may award
grant assistance to fund 100 percent of
the allowable costs of the modification
or replacement of any project funded
with increased grant funding in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section if he determines that:
(1) The innovative or alternative
elements of the project have caused the
project or significant elements of the
complete waste treatment system of
which the project is a part to fail to meet
project performance standards;
(2) The failure has significantly
increased operation and maintenance
expenditures for the project or the
complete waste treatment system of
which the project is a part; or requires
significant additional captial
expenditures for corrective action;
(3) The failure has occurred prior to
two years after initiation of operation of
the project; and
(4) The failure is not attributable to
negligence on the part of any person.
§ 35.2034 Privately owned Individual
systems.
(a) An eligible applicant may apply
for a grant to build privately owned
treatment works serving one or more
principal residences or small
commercial establishments.
(b) In addition to those applicable
limitations set forth in § 35.2100 through
§ 35.2127 the grant applicant shall:
(1) Demonstrate that the total cost and
environmental impact of building the
individual system will be less than the
cost of a conventional system;
(2) Certify that the principal residence
or small commercial establishment was
constructed before December 27,1977,
and inhabited or in use on or before that
date;
(3) Apply on behalf of a number of
individual units to be served in the
facilities planning area;
(4) Certify that public ownership of
such works is not feasible and list the
reasons; and
(5) Certify that such treatment works
will be properly operated and
maintained and will comply with all
other requirements of section 204 of the
Act.
§ 35.2040 Grant application.
Applicants for Step 2+3 or Step 3
assistance shall submit applications to
the State. In addition to the information
required in Parts 30 and 33 of this
subchapter, applicants shall provide the
following, information:
(a) Step 2+3: Combined design and
building of a treatment works and
building related services and supplies.
An application (EPA form 5700-32) for
Step 2 + 3 grant assistance shall include:
(1) A facilities plan prepared in
accordance with Subpart E or I as
appropriate;
(2) Certification from the State that
there has been adequate public
participation based on State and local
statutes;
(3) Notification of any advance
received under § 35.2025(b); and
(4) Evidence of compliance with all
applicable limitations on award
(§§ 35.2100 through 35.2127).
-------
6242 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Step 3: Building of a treatment
works and related services and
supplies. An application (EPA form
5700-32) for Step 3 grant assistance shall
include:
(1) A facilities plan prepared in
accordance with Subpart E or I as
appropriate;
(2) Certification from the State that
there has been adequate public
participation based on State and local
statutes;
(3) Notification of any advance
received under § 35.2025(b);
(4) Evidence of compliance with all
applicable limitations on award
(§§ 35.2100 through 35.2127);
(5) Final design drawings and
specifications;
(6) The project schedule; and
(7) In the case of an application for
Step 3 assistance that is solely for the
acquisition of eligible real property, a
plat which shows the legal description
of the property to be acquired, a
preliminary layout of the distribution
and drainage systems, and an
explanation of the intended method of
acquiring the real property (see 40 CFR
Part 4).
(c) Training facility project. An
application (EPA form 5700-32) for a
grant for construction and support of a
training facility, facilities or training
programs under section 109(b) of the Act
shall include:
(1) A written commitment from the
State agency to carry out at such facility
a program of training; and
(2) If a facility is to be built, an
engineering report including facility
design data and cost estimates for
design and building.
(d) Advances of allowance. State
applications for advances of allowance
to small communities shall be on EPA
form.5700-31, Application for Federal
Assistance (short form). The application
shall include:
(1) A list of communities that received
an advance of allowance and the
amount received by each under the
previous State grant; and
(2) The basis for the amount
requested.
(e) Field Testing of Innovative and
Alternative Technology. An application
(EPA Form 5700-32) for field testing of I/
A projects shall include a field testing
plan containing:-
(1) Identification; including size, of all
principal components to be tested;
(2) Location of testing facilities in
relationship to full scale design;
(3) Identification of critical design
parameters and performance variables
that are to be verified as the basis for I/
A determinations:
(4) Schedule for construction of field
testing facilities and duration of
proposed testing;
(5) Capital and O&M cost estimate of
field testing facilities with
documentation of cost effectiveness of
field testing approach; and
(6) Design drawing, process flow
diagram, equipment specification and
related engineering data and
information sufficient to describe the
overall design and proposed
performance of the field testing facility.
(f) Marine CSO Project. An
application (EPA Form 5700-32) for
marine CSO grant assistance under
§ 35.2024(b) shall include:
(1) All information required under
paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(6),
and (b)(7), of this section;
(2) Final design drawings and
specifications or a commitment to
provide them by a date set by the
Regional Administrator; and
(3) The water quality benefits
demonstration required under
§ 35.2024(b)(l).
(Approved by the'Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2042 Review of grant application*.
(a) All States shall review grant
applications to ensure that they are
complete. When the State determines
the proposed project is entitled to
priority it shall forward the State
priority certification and, except where
application review is delegated, the
complete application to the regional
Administrator for review.
(b)(l) All States delegated authority to
manage the construction grants program
under section 205(g) of the Act and
Subpart F of this part shall furnish a
written certification to the Regional
Administrator, on a project-by-project
basis, stating that the applicable Federal
requirements within the scope of
authority delegated to the State under
the delegation agreement have been
met. The certification must be supported
by documentation specified in the
delegation agreement which will be
made available to the Regional
Administrator upon request. The
Regional Administrator shall accept the
certification unless he determines the
State has failed to establish adequate
grounds for the certification or that an
applicable requirement has not been
met.
(2)(i) When EPA receives a
certification covering all delegable
preaward requirements, the Regional
Administrator shall approve or
disapprove the grant within 45 calendar
days of receipt of the certification. The
Regional Administrator shall state in
writing the reasons for any disapproval,
and he shall have an additional 45 days
to review any subsequent revised
submissions. If the Regional
Administrator fails to approve or
disapprove the grant within 45 days of
receipt of the application, the grant shall
be deemed approved and the Regional
Adminstrator shall issue the grant
agreement.
(ii) Grant increase requests are
subject to the 45 day provision of this
section if the State has been delegated
authority over the subject matter of the
request.
(c) Applications for assistance for
training facilities funded under section
109(b) and for State advances of
allowance under section 201(1)(1) of the
Act and § 35.2025 will be reviewed in
accordance with Part 30 of this
subchapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2050 Effect of approval or
certification of documents.
Review or approval of facilities plans,
design drawings and specifications or
other documents by or for EPA is for
administrative purposes only and does
not relieve the grantee of its
responsibility to properly plan, design,
build and effectively operate and
maintain the treatment works described
in the grant agreement as required under
law, regulations, permits, and good
management practices. EPA is not
responsible for increased costs resulting
from defects in the plans, design
drawings and specifications or other
subagreement documents.
§ 35.2100 Limitations on award.
Before awarding grant assistance for
any project the Regional Administrator
shall approve the facilities plan and
final design drawings and specifications,
and determine that the applicant and the
applicant's project have met all of the
applicable requirements of § 35.2040 and
§§35.2100 through 35.2127 except as
provided in § 35.2202 for Step 2+3
projects.
§ 35.2101 Advanced treatment.
Projects proposing advanced
treatment shall be awarded grant
assistance only after the project has
been reviewed under EPA's advanced
treatment review policy. This review
must be completed before submission of
any application. EPA recommends that
potential grant applicants obtain this
review before initiation of design.
§ 35.2102 Water quality management
plans.
The project shall be consistent with
the approved elements of any applicable
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday. February 17. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6243
water quality management (WQM) plan
approved under section 208 or section
303(e) of the Act; and the applicant shall
be the waste water management agency
designated in that WQM plan.
§ 35.2103 Priority determination.
The project shall be entitled to
priority in accordance with § 35.2015,
and the award of grant assistance for
the project shall not jeopardize the
funding of any project of higher priority
under the approved priority system.
§ 35.2104 Funding and other
considerations.
The applicant shall;
(a) Agree to pay the non-Federal
project costs;
(b) Demonstrate the legal,
institutional, managerial, and financial
capability to ensure adequate building
and operation and maintenance of the
treatment works throughout the
applicant's jurisdiction including the
ability to comply with Part 30 of this
subchapter. This demonstration must
include: an explanation of the roles and
responsibilities of the local governments
involved; how construction and
operation and maintenance of .the
facilities will be financed; a current
estimate of the cost of the facilities; and
a calculation of the annual costs per
household. It must also include a written
certification signed by the applicant that
the applicant has analyzed the costs and
financial impacts of the proposed
facilities, and that it has the capability
to finance-and manage their building
and operation and maintenance in
accordance with this regulation;
(c) Certify that it has not violated any
Federal, State or local' law pertaining to
fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks,
collusion, conflict of interest or other
unlawful or corrupt practice relating to
or in connection with facilities planning
or design work on a wastewater
treatment works project.
(d) Indicate the level of participation
for minority and women's business
enterprises during facilities planning
and design of the project.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
S 35.2105 Debarment and suspension.
The applicant shall indicate whether
it used the services of any individual,
organization, or unit of government for
facilities planning or design work whose
name appears on the master list of
debarments, suspensions, and voluntary
exclusions. See 40 CFR 32.400. If the
applicant indicates it has used the
services of a debarred individual or
firm, EPA will closely examine the
facilities plan, design drawings and
Specifications to determine whether to
award a grant. EPA will also determine
whether the applicant should be found
non-responsible under Part 30 of this
subchapter or be the subject of possible
debarment or suspension under Part 32
of this subchapter.
§ 35.2106 Plan of operation.
The applicant shall submit a draft
plan of operation that addresses
development of: An operation and
maintenance manual; an emergency
operating program; personnel training;
an adequate budget consistent with the
user charge system approved under
§ 35.2140; operational reports;
laboratory testing needs; and an
operation and maintenance program for
the complete waste treatment system.
§ 35.2107 Intei-munlcipal service
agreements.
If the project will serve two or more
municipalities, the applicant shall
submit the executed intermunicipal
agreements, contracts or other legally
binding instruments necessary for the
financing, building and operation of the
proposed treatment works. At a
minimum they must include the basis
upon which costs are allocated, the
formula by which costs are allocated,
and the manner in which the cost
allocation system will be administered.
The Regional Administrator may waive
this requirement provided the applicant
can demonstrate:
(a) That such an agreement is already
in place; or
(b) Evidence of historic service
relationships for water supply,
wastewater or other services between
the affected communities regardless of
the existence of formal agreements, and
(c) That the financial strength of the
supplier agency is adequate to continue
the project, even if one of the proposed
customer agencies fails to participate.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2108
works.
Phased or segmented treatment
Grant funding may be awarded for a
phase or segment of a treatment works,
subject to the limitations of § 35.2123,
although that phase or segment does not
result in compliance with the
enforceable requirements of the Act,
provided:
(a) The great agreement requires the
recipient to make the treatment works of
which the phase or segment is a part
operational and comply with the
enforceable requirements of the Act
according to a schedule specified in the
grant agreement regardless of whether
grant funding is available for the
remaining phases and segments; and
(b) Except in the case of a grant solely
for the acquisition of eligible real
property, one or more of the following
conditions exist:
(1) The Federal share of the cost of
building the treatment works would
require a disproportionate share of the
State's annual allotment relative to
other needs or would require a major
portion of the State's annual allotment;
(2) The period to complete the
building of the treatment works will
cover three years or more; or
(3) The treatment works must be
phased or segmented to meet the
requirements of a Federal or State court
order.
§35.2109 Step 2+3.
The Regional Administrator may
award a Step 2+3 grant which will
provide the Federal share of an
allowance under Appendix B and the
estimated allowable cost of the project
only if:
(a) The population of the applicant
municipality is 25,000 or less according
to the most recent U.S. Census;.
(b) The total Step 3 building cost is
estimated to be $8 million or less; and
(c) The project is not for a treatment
works phase or segment.
§ 35.2110 Access to individual systems.
Applicants for privately owned
individual systems shall provide
assurance of access to the systems at all
reasonable times for such purposes as
inspection, monitoring, building,
operation, rehabilitation and
replacement.
§ 35.2111 Revised water quality
standards.
After December 29,1984, no grant
assistance can be awarded in a State for
stream segments which have not had
their water quality standards reviewed
and revised, as appropriate, or new
standards adopted under section 303(c)
of the Act, unless the State has in good
faith submitted such water quality
standards and the Regional
Administrator has failed to act on them
within 120 days of receipt.
§ 35.2112 Marine discharge waiver
applicants.
If the applicant is also an applicant
for a secondary treatment requirement
waiver under section 301 (h) of the Act, a
plan must be submitted which contains
a modified scope of work, a schedule for
completion of the less-than-secondary
facility and an estimate of costs
providing for building the proposed less-
than-secondary facilities, including
-------
6244
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
provisions for possible future additions
of treatment processes or techniques to
meet secondary treatment requirements.
§ 35.2113 Environmental review.
(a) The environmental review
required by Part 6 of this Chapter must
be completed before submission of any
application. The potential applicant
should work with the State and EPA as
early as possible in the facilities
planning process to determine if the
project qualifies for a categorical
exclusion from Part 6 requirements, or
whether a finding of no significant
impact or an environmental impact
statement is required.
(b) In conjunction with the facilities
planning process as described in
§ 35.2030(c), a potential applicant may
request, in writing, that EPA make a
formal determination under Part 6 of this
chapter.
§ 35.2114 Value engineering.
(a) If the project has not received Step
2 grant assistance the applicant shall
conduct value engineering if the total
estimated cost of building the treatment
works is more than $10 million.
(b) The value engineering
recommendations shall be implemented
to the maximum extent feasible.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2116 Collection system.
Except as provided in § 35.2032(c), if
the project involves collection system
work, such work:
(a) Shall be for the replacement or
major rehabilitation of an existing
collection system which was not build
with Federal funds awarded on or after
October 18,1972, and shall be necessary
to the integrity and performance of the
complete waste treatment system; or
(b) Shall be for a new cost-effective
collection system in a community in
existence on October 18,1972, which
has sufficient existing or planned
capacity to adequately treat such
collected wastewater and where the
bulk (generally two-thirds) of the
expected flow (flow from existing plus
future residential users) will be from the
resident population on October 18,1972.
The expected flow will be subject to the
limitations for interceptors contained in
§ 35.2123. If assistance is awarded, the
grantee shall provide assurances that
the existing population will connect to
the collection system within a
reasonable time after project
completion.
§ 35.2118 Preaward costs.
(a) EPA will not award grant
assistance for Step 2+3 and Step 3 work
performed before award of grant
assistance for that project, except:
(1) In emergencies or instances where
delay could result in significant cost
increases, the Regional Administrator
may approve preliminary Step 3 work
(such as procurement of major
equipment requiring long lead times,
field testing of innovative and
alternative technologies, minor sewer
rehabilitation, acquisition of eligible
land, or of an option for the purchase of
eligible land or advance building of
minor portions of treatment works),
after completion of the environmental
review as required by § 35.2113.
(2) If the Regional Administrator
approves preliminary Step 3 work, such
approval is not an actual or implied
commitment of grant assistance and the
applicant proceeds at its own risk.
(b) Any procurement is subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 33, and in
the case of acquisition of eligible real
property, 40 CFR Part 4.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§35.2120 Infiltration/Inflow.
(a) General. The applicant shall
demonstrate to the Regional
Administrator's satisfaction that each
sewer system discharging into the
proposed treatment works project is not
or will not be subject to excessive
infiltration/inflow. For combined
sewers, inflpw is not considered
excessive in any event.
(b) Inflow. If the rainfall induced peak
inflow rate results or will result in
chronic operational problems during
storm events, the applicant shall
perform a study of the sewer system to
determine the quantity of excessive
inflow and to propose a rehabilitation
program to eliminate the excessive
inflow. All cases in which facilities are
planned for the specific storage and/or
treatment of inflow shall be subject to a
cost-effectiveness analysis.
(c) Infiltration. (1) If the flow rate at
the existing treatment facility is 120
gallons per capita per day or less during
periods of high groundwater, the
applicant shall build the project
including sufficient capacity to transport
and treat any existing infiltration.
However, if the applicant believes any
specific portion of its sewer system is
subject to excessive infiltration, the
applicant may confirm its belief in a
cost-effectiveness analysis and propose
a sewer rehabilitation program to
eliminate that specific excessive
infiltration.
(2) If the flow rate at the existing
treatment facility is more than 120
gallons per capita per day during
periods of high groundwater, the
applicant shall either:
(i) Perform a study of the sewer
system to determine the quantity of
excessive infiltration and to propose a
sewer rehabilitation program to
eliminate the excessive infiltration; or
(ii) If the flow rate is not significantly
more than 120 gallons per capita per
day, request the Regional Administrator
to determine that he may proceed
without further study, in which case the
allowable project cost will be limited to
the cost of a project with a capacity of
120 gallons per capita per day under
Appendix A.G.2.a.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2122 Approval «f user charge system
and proposed sewer use ordinance.
If the project is for Step 3 grant
assistance, unless it is solely for
acquisition of eligible land, the applicant
must obtain the Regional
Administrator's approval of its user
charge system (§ 35.2140) and proposed
(or existing) sewer use ordinance
§ 35.2130). If the applicant has a sewer
use ordinance or user charge system in
affect, the applicant shall demonstrate
to the Regional Administrator's
satisfaction that they meet the
requirements of this Part and are being
enforced.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§35.2123 Reserve capacity.
EPA will limit grant assistance for
reserve capacity as follows:
(a) If EPA awarded a grant for a Step
3 interceptor segment before December
29,1981, EPA may award grants for
remaining interceptor segments included
in the facilities plan with reserve
capacity as planned, up to 40 years.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(a) of this section, if EPA awards a grant
for a Step 3 or Step 3 segment of a
primary, secondary, or advanced
treatment facility or its interceptors
included in the facilities plan before
October 1,1984, the grant for that Step 3
or Step 3 segment, and any remaining
segments, may include 20 years reserve
capacity.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, after September 30,
1984, no grant shall be made to provide
reserve capacity for a project for
secondary treatment or more stringent
treatment or new interceptors and
appurtenances. Grants for such projects
shall be based on capacity necessary to
serve existing needs (including existing
needs of residential, commercial,
industrial, and other users) as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6245
determined on the date of the approval
of the Step 3 grant. Grant assistance
awarded after September 30,1990 shall
be limited to the needs existing on
September 30,1990.
(d) For any application with capacity
in excess of that provided by this
section:
(1) All incremental costs shall be paid
by the applicant. Incremental costs
include all oosts which would not have
been incurred but for the additional
excess capacity, i.e., any cost in
addition to the most cost-effective
alternative with eligible reserve
capacity described under paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
(2) It must be determined that the
actual treatment works to be built meets
the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act and all
applicable laws and regulations.
(3) The Regional Administrator shall
approve the plans, specifications and
estimates for the actual treatment
works.
(4) The grantee shall assure the
Regional Administrator satisfactorily
that it has assessed the costs and
financial impacts of the actual treatment
works and has the capability to finance
and manage their construction and
operation.
(5) The grantee must implement a user
charge system which applies to the
entire service area of the grantee.
(6) The grantee shall execute
appropriate grant conditions or releases
protecting the Federal Government from
any claim for any of the costs of
construction due to the additional
capacity.
§ 35.2125 Treatment of wastewater from
Industrial users.
(a) Grant assistance shall not be
provided for a project unless the project
is included in a complete waste
treatment system and the principal
purpose of both the project and the
system is for the treatment of domestic
wastewater of the entire community,
area, region or district concerned.
(b) Allowable project costs do not
include:
11) Costs of interceptor or collector
sewers constructed exclusively, or
almost exclusively, to serve industrial
users; or
(2) Costs for control or removal of
pollutants in wastewater introduced into
the treatment works by industrial users,
unless the applicant is required to
remove such pollutants introduced from
nonindustrial users.
§ 35.2127 Federal facilities.
Grant assistance shall not be provided
for costs to transport or treat
wastewater produced by a facility that
is owned and operated by the Federal
government which contributes more
than 250,000 gallons per day or five
percent of the design flow of the
complete waste treatment system,
whichever is less.,
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§35.2130 Sewer use ordinance.
The sewer use ordinance (see also
§§35.2122 and 35.2208) or other legally
binding document shall prohibit any
new connections from inflow sources
into the treatment works and require
that new sewers and connections to the
treatment works are properly designed
and constructed. The ordinance or other
legally binding document shall also
require that all wastewater introduced
into the treatment works not contain
toxics or other pollutants in amounts or
concentrations that endanger public
safety and physical integrity of the
treatment works; cause violation of
effluent or water quality limitations; or
preclude the selection of the most cost-
effective alternative for wastewater
treatment and sludge disposal.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027]
§35.2140 User charge system.
The user charge system (see
§§35.2122 and 35.2208) must be designed
to produce adequate revenues required
for operation and maintenance
(including replacement). It shall provide
that each user which discharges
pollutants that cause an increase in the
cost of managing the effluent or sludge
from the treatment works shall pay for
such increased cost. The user charge
system shall be based on either actual
use under paragraph (a) of this section,
ad valorem taxes under paragraph (b) of
this section, or a combination of the two.
(a) User charge system based on
actual use. A grantee's user charge
system based on actual use (or
estimated use) of wastewater treatment
services shall provide that each user (or
user class) pays its proportionate share
of operation and maintenance (including
replacement) costs of treatment works
within the grantee's service area, based
on the user's proportionate contribution
to the total wastewater loading from all
users (or user classes).
(b) User charge system based on ad
valorem taxes. A grantee's user charge
system which is based on ad valorem
taxes may be approved if:
(1) On December 27,1977, the grantee
had in existence a system of dedicated
ad valorem taxes which collected
revenues to pay the cost of operation
and maintenance of wastewater
treatment works within the grantee's
service area and the grantee has
continued to use that system;
(2) The ad valorem user charge system
distributes the operation and
maintenance (including replacement)
costs for all treatment works in the
grantee's jurisdiction to the residential
and small non-residential user class
(including at the grantee's option
nonresidential, commercial and
industrial .users that introduce no more
than the equivalent of 25,000 gallons per
day of domestic sanitary wastes to the
treatment works), in proportion to the
use of the treatment works by this class;
and
(3) Each member of the industrial user
and commercial user class which
discharges more than 25,000 gallons per
day of sanitary waste pays its share of
the costs of operation and maintenance
(including replacement) of the treatment
works based upon charges for actual
use.
(c) Notification. Each user charge
system must provide that each user be
notified, at least annually, in
conjunction with a regular bill (or other
means acceptable to the Regional
Administrator), of the rate and that
portion of the user charges or ad
valorem taxes which are attributable to
wastewater treatment services.
(d) Financial management system.
Each user charge system must include
an adequate financial management
system that will accurately account for
revenues generated by the system and
expenditures for operation and
maintenance (including replacement) of
the treatment system, based on an
adequate budget identifying the basis
for determining the annual operation
and maintenance costs and the costs of
personnel, material, energy and
administration.
(e) Charges for operation and
maintenance for extraneous flows. The
user charge system shall provide that
the costs of operation and maintenance
for all flow not directly attributable to
users (i.e., infiltration/inflow) be
distributed among all users based upon
either of the following:
(1) In the same manner that it
distributes the costs for their actual use,
or
(2) Under a system which uses one or
any combination of the following factors
on a reasonable basis:
(i) Flow volume of the users;
(ii) Land area of the users;
(iii) Number of hookups or discharges
of the users;
(jv) Property valuation of the users, if
the grantee has an approved user charge
system based on ad valorem taxes.
-------
6246 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
(f) After completion of building a
project, revenue from the project (e.g.,
sale of a treatment-related by-product;
lease of the land; or sale of crops grown
on the land purchased under the grant
agreement) shall be used to offset the
costs of operation and maintenance. The
grantee shall proportionately reduce all
user charges.
(g) Adoption of system. One or more
municipal legislative enactments or
other appropriate authority must
incorporate the user charge system. If
the project accepts wastewater from
other municipalities, the subscribers
receiving waste treatment services from
the grantee shall adopt user charge
systems in accordance with this section.
These user charge systems shall also be
incorporated in appropriate municipal
legislative enactments or other
appropriate authority of all
municipalities contributing wastes to the
treatment works.
(h) Inconsistent agreements. The user
charge system shall take precedence
over any terms or conditions of
agreements or contracts which are
inconsistent with the requirements of
section 204(b)(l)(A) of the Act and this
section.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2152 Federal share.
(a) General. The Federal share for
each project shall be based on the sum
of the total Step 3 allowable costs and
the allowance established in the grant
agreement under Appendix B. Except as
provided elsewhere in this section, the
Federal share shall be:
(1) 75 percent for grant assistance
awarded before October 1,1984;
(2) 55 percent for grant assistance
awarded after September 30,1984,
except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section; and
(3) Subject to paragraph (c) of this
section, 75 percent for grant assistance
awarded after September 30,1984, for
sequential phases or segments of a
primary, secondary, or advanced
treatment facility or its interceptors, or
infiltration/inflow correction provided:
(i) The treatment works being phased
or segmented is described in a facilities
plan approved by the Regional
Administrator before October 1,1984;
(ii)'The Step 3 grant for the initial
phase or segment of the treatment works
described in (a)(3)(i) of this section is
awarded prior to October 1,1984; and
(iii) The phase or segment that
receives 75 percent funding is necessary
to (A) make a phase or segment
previously funded by EPA operational
and comply with the enforceable
requirements of the Act, or (B) complete
the treatment works referenced in
(a)(3)(i) of this section provided that all
phases or segments previously funded
by EPA are operational and comply with
the enforceable requirements of the Act.
(b) Innovative and alternative
technology. In accordance with
§ 35.2032, the Federal share for eligible
treatment works or unit processes and
techniques that the Regional
Administrator determines meet the
definition of innovative or alternative
technology shall be 20 percent greater
than the Federal share under paragraph
(a) or (c) of this section, but in no event
shall the total Federal share be greater
than 85 percent. This increased Federal
share depends on the availability of
funds from the reserve under § 35.2020.
The proportional State contribution to
the non-Federal share of building costs
for I/A projects must be the same as or
greater than the proportional State
contribution (if any) to the non-Federal
share of eligible building costs for all
treatment works which receive 75 or 55
percent grants or such other.Federal
share under paragraph (c) of this section
in the State.
(c) Uniform lower Federal share. (1)
Except as provided in § 35.2032 (c) and
(d) of this section, the Governor of a
State may request the Regional
Administrator's approval to revise
uniformly throughout the State the
Federal share of grant assistance for all
future projects. The revised Federal
share must apply to all needs categories
(see § 35.2015(b)(2)).
(2) After EPA awards grant assistance
for a project, the Federal share shall be
the same for any grant increase that is
within the scope of the project.
(d) Training Facilities. The Federal
share of treatment works required to
train and upgrade waste treatment
works operations and maintenance
personnel may be up to 100 percent of
the allowable cost of the project.
(1) Where a grant is made to serve
two or more States, the Administrator is
authorized to make an additional grant
for a supplemental facility in each State.
The Federal funds awarded to any State
under section 109(b) for all training
facilities shall not exceed $500,000.
(2) Any grantee who received a grant
under section 109(b) before December
27,1977, may have the grant increased
up to $500,000 by funds made available
under the Act, not to exceed 100 percent
of the allowable costs.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2200 Grant conditions.
In addition to the EPA General Grant
Conditions (Part 30 of this subchapter),
each treatment works grant shall be
subject to the conditions under
§§ 35.2202 through 35.2218.
§ 35.2202 Step 2+3 projects.
(a) Prior to initiating action to acquire
eligible real property, a Step 2+3
grantee shall submit for Regional
Administrator review and written
approval the information required under
§ 35.2040(b)(7).
(b) Before initiating procurement
action for the building of the project, a
Step 2+3 grantee shall submit for the
Regional Administrator's review and
written approval the information
required under §§ 35.2040 (b)(5) and
(b)(6), 35.2106, 35.2107, 35.2130 and
35.2140.
§ 35.2204 Project changes.
(a) Minor changes in the project work
that are consistent with the objectives of
the project and within the scope of the
grant agreement do not require the
execution of a formal grant amendment
before the grantee's implementation of
the change. However, the amount of the
funding provided by the grant agreement
may only be increased by a formal grant
amendment.
(b) The grantee must receive from the
Regional Administrator a formal grant
amendment before implementing
changes which:
(1) Alter the project performance
standards;
(2) Alter the type of wastewater
treatment provided by the project;
(3) Significantly delay or accelerate
the project schedule;
(4) Substantially alter the facilities
plan, design drawings and
specifications, or the location, size,
capacity, or quality of any major part of
the project; or
(5) Otherwise require a formal grant
amendment under Part 30 of this
subchapter.
§ 35.2206 Operation and maintenance.
(a) The grantee must assure
economical and effective operation and
maintenance (including replacement) of
the treatment works.
(b) Except as provided in paragraphs
(c)(l) and (c)(2) of this section, the
Regional Administrator shall not pay
more than 50 percent of the Federal
share of any project unless the grantee
has furnished and the Regional
Administrator has approved the final
plan of operation required by § 35.2106,
and shall not pay more than 90 percent
of the Federal share of any project
unless the grantee has furnished and the
Regional Administrator has approved an
operation and maintenance manual.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday. February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6247
(c){l) In projects where segmenting of
a proposed treatment works has
occurred, the Regional Administrator
shall not pay more than 90 percent of the
Federal share of the total allowable
costs of the proposed treatment works
until the grantee has furnished and the
Regional Administrator has approved an
operation and maintenance manual.
(2) In projects where a component is
placed in operation before completion of
the entire project, the Regional
Administrator shall not make any
additional payment on that project until
a final operation and maintenance
manual for the operating component is
furnished and approved.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2208 Adoption of sewer use
ordinance and user charge system.
The grantee shall adopt its sewer use
ordinance and implement its user charge
system developed under §§ 35.2130 and
35.2140 before the treatment works is
placed in operation. Further, the grantee
shall implement the user charge system
and sewer use ordinance for the useful
life of the treatment works.
§ 35.2210 Land acquisition.
The grantee shall not acquire real
property determined allowable for grant
assistance until the Regional
Administrator has determined that
applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 4
have been met.
§ 35.2211 Field testing for innovative and
alternative technology report.
The grantee shall submit a report
containing the procedure, cost, results
and conclusions of any field testing. The
report shall be submitted to the Regional
Administrator in accordance with a
schedule to be specified in the grant
agreement.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2212 Project initiation.
(a) The grantee shall expeditiously
initiate and complete the project, in
accordance with the project schedule
contained in the grant application and
agreement. Failure to promptly initiate
and complete a project may result in the
imposition of sanctions under Part 30 of
this subchapter.
(b) The grantee shall initiate
procurement action for building the
project promptly after award of a Step 3
grant or after receiving written approval
of the information required under
§ 35.2202 under a Step 2+3 grant. Public
notice of proposed procurement action
should be made promptly after Step 3
award or final approvals for a Step 2 + 3
grant under § 35.2202. The grantee shall
award the subagreement(s) and issue
notice(s) to proceed, where required, for
building all significant elements of the
project within twelve months of the Step
3 award or final Step 2 + 3 approvals.
(c) Failure to promptly award all
subagreement(s) for building the project
will result in a limitation on allowable
costs. (See Appendix A, A.2.e.).
(d) The grantee shall notify the
Regional Administrator immediately
upon award of the subagreement(s) for
building all significant elements of the
project (see 40 CFR 33.211).
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2214 Grantee responsibilities.
(a) The grantee shall complete the
project in accordance with the grant
agreement including: the facilities plan
that establishes the need for the project;
the design drawings and specifications;
the plan of operation under § 35.2106
that identifies the basis to determine
annual operating costs; the financial
management system under § 35.2140(d)
that adequately accounts for revenues
and expenditures; the user charge
system under § 35.2140 that will
generate sufficient revenue to operate
and maintain the treatment works; the
project schedule; and all other
applicable regulations. Ttie grantee shall
maintain and operate the project to meet
project performance standards including
the enforceable requirements of the Act
for the design life.
(b) The grantee shall provide the
architectural and engineering services
and other services necessary to fulfill
the obligation in paragraph (a) of this
section.
§ 35.2216 Notice of building completion
and final Inspection.
The grantee shall notify the Regional
Administrator when the building of the
project is complete. Final inspection
shall be made by the Regional
Administrator after receipt of the notice
of building completion.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2218 Project performance.
(a) The grantee shall notify the
Regional Administrator in writing of the
actual date of initiation of operation.
(b) Subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
Part 33, the grantee shall select the
engineer or engineering firm principally
responsible for either supervising
construction or providing architectural
and engineering services during
construction as the prime engineer to
provide the following'services during the
first year following the initiation of
operation:
(I) Direct the operation of the project
and revise the operation and
maintenance manual as necessary to
accommodate actual operating
experience;
(2) Train or provide for training of
operating personnel and prepare
curricula and training material for
operating personnel; and
(3) Advise the grantee whether the
project is meeting the project
performance standards.
(c) On the date one year after the
initiation of operation of the project, the
grantee shall certify to the Regional
Administrator whether the project meets
the project performance standards. If the
Regional Administrator or the grantee
concludes that the project does not meet
the project performance standards, the
grantee shall submit the following:
(1) A corrective action report which
includes an analysis of the cause of the
project's failure to meet the performance
standards (including the quantity of
infiltration/inflow proposed to be
eliminated), and an estimate of the
nature, scope and cost of the corrective
action necessary to bring the project
into compliance;
(2) The schedule for undertaking in a
timely manner the corrective, action
necessary to bring the projeot into
compliance; and
(3) The scheduled date for certifying
to the Regional Administrator that the
project is meeting the project
performance standards.
(d) Except as provided in § 35.2032(c)
the grantee shall take corrective action
necessary to bring a project into
compliance with the project
performance standards at its own
expense.
(e) Nothing in this section:
(1) Prohibits a grantee fiom requiring
more assurances, guarantees, or
indemnity or other contractual
requirements from any party performing
project work; or
(2) Affects EPA's right to take
remedial action, including enforcement,
against a grantee that fails to carry out
its obligations under § 35.2214.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2250 Determination of allowable
costs.
The Regional Administrator will
determine the allowable costs of the
project based on applicable provisions
of laws and regulations, the scope of the
approved project, § 30.705 of this
subchapter, and Appendix A of this
subpart.
-------
6248 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday. February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
§ 35.2260 Advance purchase of eligible
land.
In the case of grant assistance
awarded solely for the acquisition of
eligible land, the following provisions
are deferred until the award of the
ensuing Step 3 assistance for the
building of facilities: §§35.2105, 35.2130,
35.2140, 35.2206 and 35.2208.
§ 35.2262 Funding of field testing.
In the case of grant assistance for
field testing of innovative or alternative
wastewater process and techniques, the
following provisions are deferred until
the award of assistance for building the
approved facilities: § § 35.2105, 35.2106,
35.2122, 35.2130, 35.2140, 35.2206, and
35.2208.
§35.2300 Grant payments.
Except as provided in § 35.2206, the
Regional Administrator shall pay the
Federal share of the allowance under
§ 35.2025 and the allowable project costs
incurred to date and currently due and
payable by the grantee, as certified in
the grantee's most recent payment
request.
(a) Adjustment. The Regional
Administrator may at any time review
and audit requests for payment and
payments and make appropriate
adjustments as provided in Part 30 of
this subpart.
(b) Refunds, rebates and credits. The
Federal share of any refunds, rebates,
credit s, or other amounts (including any
interest) that accrue to or are received
by the grantee for the project, and that
are properly allocable to costs for which
the grantee has been paid under a grant,
must be credited to the current State
allotment or paid to the United States.
Examples include rebates for prompt
payment and sales tax refunds.
Reasonable expenses incurred by the
grantee securing such refunds, rebates,
credits, or other amounts shall be
allowable under the grant when
approved by the Regional
Administrator.
(c) Release. By its acceptance of final
payment, the grantee releases and
discharges the United States, its officers,
agents, and employees from all
liabilities, obligations, and claims
arising out of the project work or under
the grant, subject only to exceptions
previously specified in writing between
the Regional Administrator and the
grantee.
(d) Payment of costs incurred under
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the
introductory paragraph of this section, if
the Regional Administrator determines
it is necessary for the expeditious
completion of a project, he may make
advance payment after grant award for
the Federal share of the eligible cost of
any payment of relocation assistance
under § 4.502(c) of this chapter by the
grantee. The requirements m Part 30 of
this subchapter apply to any advances
of funds for assistance payments.
(e) Payment under grants to States for
advances of allowance—(1) Advance
payment to State. Notwithstanding the
provisions of the introductory paragraph
of this section, the Regional
Administrator, under a State grant for
advances of allowance (see § 35.2025],
may make payments on an advance or
letter-of-credit payment method in
accordance with the requirements under
Part 30 of this subchapter. The State and
the Regional Administrator shall agree
to the payment terms.
(2) Assignment. If the State chooses to
assign its payments to a potential grant
applicant, it shall execute an agreement
with the potential grant applicant
authorizing direct payment from EPA
and establishing appropriate terms for
payment. The State shall provide a copy
of the agreement to EPA.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2040-0027)
§ 35.2350 Subagreement enforcement.
(a) Regional Administrator authority.
At the grantee's request the Regional
Administrator may provide technical
and legal assistance in the
administration and enforcement of any
subagreement related to treatment
works for which an EPA grant was
made and to intervene in any civil
action involving the enforcement of such
subagreements, including subagreement
disputes which are the subject of either
arbitration or court action.
(b) Privity of subagreement. The
Regional Administrator's technical or
legal involvement in any subagreement
dispute will not make EPA a party to
any subagreement entered into by the
grantee.
(c) Grantee responsibilities. The
provision of technical or legal assistance
under this section in no way"releases the
grantee from its obligations under
§ 35.2214, or affects EPA's right to take
remedial action, including enforcement,
against a grantee that fails to carry out
those obligations.
Appendix A—Revised Interim Final
Rule—Determination of Allowable Costs
(a) Purpose. The information in this
appendix represents Agency policies and
procedures for determining the allowability
of project costs based on the Clean Water
Act, EPA policy, appropriate Federal cost
principles under Part 30 of this subchapter
and reasonableness.
(b) Applicability. This cost information
applies to grant assistance awarded on or
after the effective date of this regulation.
Project cost determinations under this
subpart are not limited to the items listed in
this appendix. Additional cost determinations
based on applicable law and regulations
must of course be made on a project-by-
project basis. Those cost items not previously
included in program requirements are not
mandatory for decisions under grants
awarded before the effective date. They are
only to be used as guidance in those cases.
A. Costs Related to Subagreements
1. Allowable costs related to
subagreements include:
a. The costs of subagreements for building
the project.
b. The costs of complying with the
procurement requirements of Part 33 of this
subchapter, other than the costs of self-
certification under § 33.110.
c. The cost of legal and engineering
services incurred by grantees in deciding
procurement protests and defending their
decisions in protest appeals under subpart G
of 40 CFR Part 33.
d. The costs for establishing or using
minority and women's business liaison
services.
e. The costs of services incurred during the
building of a project to ensure that it is built
in conformanoe with the design drawings and
specifications.
f. The costs (including legal, technical, and
administrative costs] of assessing the merits
of or negotiating the settlement of a claim by
or against a grantee under a subagreement
provided:
(1) The claim arises from work within the
scope of the grant;
(2) A formal grant amendment is executed
specifically covering the costs before they are
incurred;
(3) The costs are not incurred to prepare
documentation that should be prepared by
the contractor to support a claim against the
grantee; and
(4) The Regional Administrator determines
that there is a significant Federal interest in
the issues involved in the claim.
g. Change orders and the costs of
meritorious contractor claims for increased
costs under subagreements as follows:
(1) Change orders and the costs of
meritorious contractor claims provided the
costs are:
(i) Within the scope of the project;
(ii) Not caused by the grantee's
mismanagement; and
(iii) Not caused by the grantee's vicarious
liability for the improper actions of others.
(2) Provided the requirements of paragraph
g(l) are met, the following are examples of
allowable change orders and contractor
claim costs:
(i) Building costs resulting from defects in
the plans, design drawings and
specifications, or other subagreement
documents only to the extent that the costs
would have been incurred if the
subagreement documents on which the bids
were based had been free of the defects, and
excluding the costs of any rework, delay,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 34 / Friday, February 17. 1984 / Rules and Regulations 6249
acceleration, or disruption caused by such
defects;
(ii) Costs of equitable adjustments under
Clause 4, Differing Site Conditions, of the
model subagreement clauses required under
S 33.1030 of this Subchapter.
(3) Settlements, arbitration awards, and
court judgments which resolve contractor
claims shall be reviewed by the grant award
official and shall be allowable only to the
extent that they meet the requirements of
paragraph g(l), are reasonable, and do not
attempt to pass on to EPA the cost of events
that were the responsibility of the grantee,
the contractor, or others.
h. The costs of the services of the prime
engineer required by § 35.2218 during the first
year following initiation of operation of the
project.
i. The cost of development of a plan of
operation including an operation and
maintenance manual required by § 35.2106.
j. Start-up services for onsite training of
operating personnel in operation and control
of specific treatment processes, laboratory
procedures, and maintenance and records
management.
2. Unallowable costs related to
subagreements include:
a. The costs of architectural or engineering
services or other services incurred in
preparing a facilities plan and the design
drawings and specifications for a project.
b. Except as provided in l.g. above,
architectural or engineering services or other
services necessary to correct defects in a
facilities-plan, design drawings and
specifications, or other subagreement
documents.
c. The costs (including legal, technical and
administrative) of defending against a
contractor claim for increased costs under a
subagreement or of prosecuting a claim to
enforce any subagreement unless:
(1) The claim arises from work within the
scope of the grant;
(2) A formal grant amendment is executed
specifically covering the costs before they are
incurred;
(3) The claim cannot be settled without
arbitration or litigation;
(4) The claim does not result from the
grantee's mismanagement;
(5) The Regional Administrator determines
that there is a significant Federal interest in
the issues involved in the claim; and
(6) In the case of defending against a
contractor claim, the claim does not result
from the grantee's responsibility for the
improper action of others.
d. Bonus payments, not legally required, for
completion of building before a contractual
completion date.
e. AH incremental costs of delay due to the
award of any subagreements for building
more than 12 months after the Step 3 grant
award or final Step 2 + 3 approvals.
B. Mitigation
1. Allowable costs include:
a. Costs necessary to mitigate only direct,
adverse, physical impacts resulting from
building of the treatment works.
b. The costs of site screening necessary to
comply with NEPA related studies and
facilities plans, or necessary to screen
adjacent properties.
c. The cost of groundwater monitoring
facilities necessary to determine the
possibility of groundwater deterioration,
depletion or modification resulting from
building the project.
2. Unallowable costs include:
a. The costs of solutions to aesthetic
problems, including design details which
require expensive building techniques and
architectural features and hardware, that are
unreasonable or substantially higher in cost
than approvable alternatives and that neither
enhance the function or appearance of the
treatment works nor reflect regional
architectural tradition.
C. Privately or Publicly Owned Small and
Onsite Systems
1. Allowable costs for small and onsite
systems serving residences and small
commercial establishments inhabited on or
before December 27, 1977 include:
a. The cost of major rehabilitation,
upgrading, enlarging and installing small and
onsite systems, but in the case of privately
owned systems, only for principal residences.
b. Conveyance pipes from property line to
offsite treatment unit which serves a cluster
of buildings.
c. Treatment and treatment residue
disposal portions of toilets with composting
tanks, oil flush mechanisms, or similar in-
house devices.
d. Treatment or pumping units from the
incoming flange when located on private
property and conveyance pipes, if any, to the
collector sewer.
e. The cost of restoring individual system
building sites to their original condition.
2. Unallowable costs for small and onsite
systems include:
a. Modification to physical structure of
homes or commercial establishments.
b. Conveyance pipes from the house to the
treatment unit located on user's property.
c. Wastewater generating fixtures such as
commodes, sinks, tubs, and drains.
D. Real Property
1. Allowable costs for land and rights-of-
way include:
a. The cost (including associated legal,
administrative and engineering costs) of land
acquired in fee simple or by lease or
easement under grants awarded after
October 17,1972, that will be an integral part
of the treatment process or that will be used
for the ultimate disposal of residues resulting
from such treatment provided the Regional
Administrator approves it in the grant
agreement. These costs include:
(1) The cost of a reasonable amount of
land, considering irregularities in application
patterns, and the need for buffer areas,
berms, and dikes;
(2) The cost of land acquired for a soil
absorption system for a group of two or more
homes;
(3) The cost of land acquired for
composting or temporary storage of compost
residues which result from wastewater
treatment;
(4) The cost of land acquired for storage of
treated wastewater in land treatment
systems before land application. The total
land area for construction of a pond for both
treatment and storage of wastewater is
allowable if the volume necessary for storage
is greater then the volume necessary for
treatment. Otherwise, the allowable cost will
be determined by the ratio of the storage
volume to the total volume of the pond.
b. The cost of complying with the
requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4621 et seq.,
4651 et seq.), under Part 4 of this chapter.
c. The cost of contracting with another
public agency or qualified private contractor
for part or all of the required acquisition and/
or relocation services.
d. The cost associated with the preparation
of the treatment works site before, during
and, to the extent agreed on in the grant
agreement, after building. These costs
include:
(1) The cost of demolition of existing
structures on the treatment works site
(including rights-of-way) if building cannot be
undertaken without such demolition;
(2) The cost (considering such factors as
betterment, cost of contracting and useful
life) of removal, relocation or replacement of
utilities, provided the grantee is legally
obligated to pay under state or local law; and
(3) The cost of restoring streets and rights-
of-way to their original condition. The need
for such restoration must result directly from
the construction and is generally limited to
repaving the width of trench.
e. The cost of acquiring all or part of an
existing publicly or privately owned
wastewater treatment works provided all the
following criteria are met:
(1) The acquisition, in and of itself,
considered apart from any upgrade,
expansion or rehabilitation, provides new
pollution control benefits;
(2) The acquired treatment works was not
built with previous Federal or State financial
assistance;
(3) The primary purpose of the acquisition
is not the reduction, elimination, or
redistribution of public or private debt; and
(4) The acquisition does not circumvent the
requirements of the Act, these regulations, or
other Federal, State or local requirements.
2. Unallowable costs for land and rights-of-
way include:
a. The costs of acquisition (including
associated legal, administrative and
engineering etc.) of sewer rights-of-way,
waste treatment plant sites (including small
system sites), sanitary landfill sites and
sludge disposal areas except as provided in
paragraph l.a. of this section.
b. Any amount paid by the grantee for
eligible land in excess of just compensation,
based on the appraised value, the grantee's
record of negotiation or any condemnation
proceeding, as determined by the Regional
Administrator.
c. Removal, relocation or replacement of
utilities located on land by privilege, such as
franchise.
E. Equipment, Materials and Supplies
1. Allowable costs of equipment, materials
and supplies include:
a. The cost of a reasonable inventory of
laboratory chemicals and supplies necessary
-------
6250 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
to initiate plant operations and laboratory
items necessary to conduct tests required for
plant Operation.
b. The costs for purchase and/or
transportation of biological seeding materials
required for expeditiously initiating the
treatment process operation.
c. Cost of shop equipment installed, at the
treatment works necessary to the operation
of the works.
d. The costs of necessary safety equipment,
provided the equipment meets applicable
Federal, State, local or industry safety
requirements.
e. A portion of the costs of collection
system maintenance equipment. The portion
of allowable costs shall be the total
equipment cost less the cost attributable to
the equipment's anticipated use on existing
collection sewers not funded on the grant.
This calculation shall be based on: [I] The
portion of the total collection system paid for
by the grant, (2) a demonstrable frequency of
need, and (3) the need for the equipment to
preclude the discharge or bypassing of
untreated wastewater.
f. The cost of mobile equipment necessary
for the operation of the overall wastewater
treatment facility, transmission of
wastewater or sludge, or for the maintenance
of equipment. These items include:
(1) Portable stand-by generators;
(2) Large portable emergency pumps to
provide "pump-around" capability in the
event of pump station failure or pipeline
breaks; and
(3)'Sludge or septic tanks, trailers, and
other vehicles having as their sole purpose
the transportation of liquid or dewatered
wastes from the collector point (including
individual or on-site systems] to the
treatment facility or disposal site.
g. Replacement parts identified and
approved in advance by the Regional
Administrator as necessary to assure
uninterrupted operation of the facility,
provided they are critical parts or major
systems components which are:
(1) Not immediately available and/or
whose procurement involves an extended
"lead-time;"
(2) Identified as critical by the equipment
supplier(s); or
(3] Critical but not included in the
inventory provided by the equipment
supplier(s).
2. Unallowable costs of equipment,
materials and supplies include:
a. The costs of equipment or material
procured in violation of the procurement
requirements of 40 CFR Part 33.
b. The cost of furnishings including
draperies, furniture and office equipment.
c. The cost of ordinary site and building
maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers
and snowblowers.
d. The cost of vehicles for the
transportation of the grantees' employees.
e. Items of routine "programmed"
maintenance such as ordinary piping, air
filters, couplings, hose, bolts, etc.
F. Industrial and Federal Users
1. Except as provided in paragraph F.2.a.,
allowable costs for industrial and Federal
facilities include development of a municipal
pretreatment program approvable under Part
403 of this chapter, and purchase of
monitoring equipment and construction of
facilities to be used by the municipal
treatment works in the pretreatment program.
2. Unallowable costs for industrial and
Federal facilities include:
a. The cost of developing an approvable
municipal pretreatment program when
performed solely for the purpose of seeking
an allowance for removal of pollutants under
Part 403 of this chapter.
b. The cost of monitoring equipment used
by industry for sampling and analysis of
industrial discharges to municipal treatment
works.
c. All incremental costs for sludge
management incurred as a result of the
grantee providing removal credits to
industrial users under 40 CFR 403.7 beyond
those sludge management costs that would
otherwise be incurred in the absence of such
removal credits.
G. Infiltration/Inflow
1. Allowable costs include:
a. The cost of treatment works capacity
adequate to transport and treat nonexcessive
infiltration/inflow under § 35.2120.
b. The costs of sewer system rehabilitation
necessary to eliminate excessive infiltration/
inflow as determined in a sewer system study
under § 35.^120.
2. Unallowable costs include:
a. When the Regional Administrator
determines that the flow rate is not
significantly more than 120 gallons per capita
per day under § 35.2120(c)(2)(ii), the
incremental cost of treatment works capacity
which is more than 120 gallons per capita per
day.
H. Miscellaneous Costs
1. Allowable costs include:
a. The costs of salaries, benefits and
expendable materials the grantee incurs for
the project.
b. Unless otherwise specified in this
regulation, the costs of meeting specific
Federal statutory procedures.
c. Costs for necessary travel directly
related to accomplishment of project
objectives. Travel not directly related to a
specific project, such as travel to professional
meetings, symposia, technology transfer
seminars, lectures, etc., may be recovered
only under an indirect cost agreement.
d. The costs of additions to a treatment
works that was assisted under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (Pub. L.
/84-660), or its amendments, and that fails to
meet its project performance standards
provided:
(1) The project is identified on the State
priority list as a project for additions to a
treatment works that has received previous
Federal funds;
(2) The grant application for the additions
includes an analysis of why the treatment
works cannot meet its project performance
standards; and
(3) The additions could have been included
in the original grant award and:
(a) Are the result of one of tne following:
(i) a change in the project performance
standards required by EPA or the State;
(ii) a written understanding between the
Regional Administrator and grantee prior to
or included in the original grant award;
(iii) a written direction by the Regional
Administrator to delay building part of the
treatment works; or
(iv) a major change in the treatment works'
design criteria that the grantee cannot
control; or
(b) Meet all the following conditions:
(i) if the original grant award was made
after December 28,1981, the treatment works
has not completed its first full year of
operation;
(ii) the additions are not caused by the
grantee's mismanagement or the improper
actions of others;
(iii) the costs of rework, delay, acceleration
or disruption that are a result of building the
additions are not included in the grant; and
(iv) the grant does not include an
allowance for facilities planning or design of
the additions.
(4) This provision applies to failures that
occur either before or after the initiation of
operation. This provision does not cover a
treatment works that fails at the end of its
design life.
e. Costs of royalties for the use of or rights
in a patented process or product with the
prior approval of the Regional Administrator.
f. Costs allocable to the water pollution
control purpose of multiple purpose projects
as determined by applying the Alternative
Justifiable Expenditure (AJE) method
described in the CG series. Multiple purpose
projects that combine wastewater treatment
with recreation do not need to use the AJE
method, but can be funded at the level of the
most cost-effective single-purpose
alternative.
g. Costs of grantee employees attending
training workshops/seminars that are
necessary to provide instruction in
administrative, fiscal or contracting
procedures required to complete the
construction of the treatment works, if
approved in advance by the Regional
Administrator.
2. Unallowable costs include:
a. Ordinary operating expenses of the
grantee including salaries and-expenses of
elected and appointed officials and
preparation of routine financial reports and
studies.
b. Preparation of applications and permits
required by Federal, State or local regulations
or procedures.
c. Administrative, engineering and legal
activities associated with the establishment
of special departments, agencies,
commissions, regions, districts or other units
of government.
d. Approval, preparation, issuance and sale
of bonds or other forms of indebtedness
required to finance the project and the
interest on them.
e. The costs of replacing, through
reconstruction or substitution, a treatment
works that was assisted under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (Pub. L.
84-660), or its amendments, and that fails to
meet its project performance standards. This
provision applies to failures that occur either
before or after the initiation of operation.
This provision does not apply to an
innovative and alternative treatment works
eligible for funding under § 35.2032(c) or a
treatment works that fails at the end of its
design life.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 34 / Friday, February 17, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
6251
f. Personal injury compensation JUT damages
arising out of the project.
g. Fines and penalties due to violations of,
or failure to comply with, Federal, State or
local laws, regulations or procedures.
h. Costs outside the scope of the approved
project.
i. Costs for which grant payment has been
or will be received from another Federal
agency.
j. Costs of treatment works for control of
pollutant discharges from a separate storm
sewer system.
k. The cost of treatment works that would
provide capacity for new habitation or other
establishments to be located on
environmentally sensitive land such as
wetlands or floodplains.
1. The costs of preparing a corrective action
report required by § 35.2218(c).
Appendix B—Final Rule—Allowance for
Facilities Planning and Design
1. This Appendix provides the method EPA
will use to determine both the estimated and
the final allowance under § 35.2025 for
facilities planning and design. The Step 2 + 3
and Step 3 grant agreement will include an
estimate of the allowance.
2. The Federal share of the allowance is
determined by applying the applicable grant
percentage in § 35.2152 to the allowance.
3. The allowance is not intended to
reimburse the grantee for costs actually
incurred for facilities planning or design.
Rather, the allowance is intended to assist in
defraying those costs. Under this procedure,
questions of equity (i.e., reimbursement on a
dollar-for-dollar basis) will not be
appropriate.
4. The estimated and final allowance will
be determined in accordance with .this
Appendix and Tables \ and 2. Table 2 is to be
used in the event that the grantee received a
grant for facilities planning. The amount of
the allowance is computed by applying the
resulting allowance percentage to the initial
allowable building cost.
5. The initial allowable building cost is the
initial allowable cost of erecting, altering,
remodeling, improving, or extending a
treatment works, whether accomplished
through subagreement or force account.
Specifically, the initial allowable building
cost is the allowable coat of the following:
a. The initial award amount of all prime
subagreements.for building the project.
b. The initial amounts approved for force
account work performed in lieu of awarding a
suoagreement for building the project.
c. The purchase price of eligible real
property.
6. The estimated allowance is to be based
on the estimate of the initial allowable
building cost.
7. The final allowance will be determined
one time only for each project, based on the
initial allowable building cost, and will not
be adjusted for subsequent cost increases or
decreases.
8. For a Step 3 project, the grantee may
request payment of 50 percent of the Federal
share of the estimated allowance
immediately after grant award. Final
payment of the Federal share of the
allowance may be requested in the first
payment after the grantee has awarded all
prime subagreements for building the project,
received the Regional Administrator's
approval for force account work, and
completed the acquisition of all eligible real
property.
9. For a Step 2 + 3 project, if the grantee has
not received a grant for facilities planning,
the grantee may request payment of 30
percent of the Federal share of the estimated
allowance immediately after the grant award.
Half of the remaining estimated allowance
may be requested when design of the project
is 50 percent complete. If the grantee has
received a grant for facilities planning, the
grantee may request half of the Federal share
of the estimated allowance when design of
the project is 50 percent complete. Final
payment of the Federal share of the
allowance may be requested in the first
payment after the grantee has awarded all
prime subagreements for building the project,
received the Regional Administrator's
approval for force account work, and
completed the acquisition of all eligible real
property.
10. The allowance does not include
architect or engineering services provided
during the building of the project, e.g.,
reviewing bids, checking shop drawings,
reviewing change orders, making periodic
visits to job sites, etc. Architect or
engineering services during the building of
the project are allowable costs subject to this
regulation and 40 CFR Part 33.
11. The State will determine the amount
and conditions of any advance under
§ 35.2025(b), not to exceed the Federal share
of the estimated allowance.
12. EPA will reduce the Federal share of the
allowance by the amount of any advances
the grantee received under § 35.2025(b).
TABLE 1.—ALLOWANCE FOR FACILITIES
PLANNING AND DESIGN
TABLE 1 .—ALLOWANCE FOR FACILITIES
PLANNING AND DESIGN—Continued
Building cost
$100,000 or less
120,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800000
900,000
1 000000
1,200,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8.000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
12.000,000
15;000,000
17,500,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
Allowance
as a
percentage
of building
cost"
144945
14 1146
136631
133597
13 1023
12 6832
123507
120764
11 8438
11 4649
11 1644
109165
10 7062
10 5240
103637
100920
97692
95523
9.3682
90686
88309
86348
84684
81975
79827
78054
76550
75248
74101
72159
69851
68300
66984
6.4841
Building cost
30,000,000
35000000
40000000
50,000,000
60 000 000
70000000
80000000
90 000 000
100000000
120000000 .. .
150000000 ..
175000000
200 000 000
Allowance
as a
percentage
of building
cost*
63142
6.1739
6.0550
5.8613
57077
55809
54734
53803
5.2983
51594
4.9944
48835
4.7894
NOTE—The allowance does not reimburse for costs in-
curred. Accordingly, the allowance Tables shall not be used
to determine the compensation for facilities planning or
design services. The compensation tor facilities planning or
design services should be based upon the nature, scope and
complexity of the services required by the community.
* Interpolate between values.
TABLE 2.—ALLOWANCE FOR DESIGN ONLY
Building cost
$100 000 or less
1 20 000
150000
175000
200 000
250000
300000 .
350000
400000
500 000
600000 .
700000
800 000
900 000
1 000000
1200000 ....
1 500000
1 750 000 .
2000000
2 500 000
3000000
3500000
4000000
5000000 ... .
6000000
7,000 000
8000000 ...
9 000 000
10000000
12000000 ...
1 5 000 000
17500000
20 000 000
25000000
30 000 000 .
35000000
40000000 '
50000 000
60000000
70 000 000
80000000
90000000
100 000,000
120000000
150000000
1 75 000 000
200000,000
. Allowance
as a
percentage
of building
cost*
85683
83808
8.1570
80059
78772
7.6668
7.4991
7.3602
7.2419
7.0485
68943
6.7666
66578
6.5634
6.4300
6.3383
6 1690
6.0547
5.9574
5.7983
5.6714
55664
5.4769
'53306
52140
5.1174
50352
49637
4.9007
4.7935
46655
45790
45054
4.3851
42892
42097
4 1421
40314
3.9432
38702
38080
37540
37063
36252
3.5284
34630
34074
NOTE.—The allowance does not reimburse for costs in-
curred. Accordingly, the allowance Tables shall not be used
to determine the compensation for facilities planning or
design services The compensation for facilities planning or
design services should be based upon the nature, scope and
complexity of the services required by the community
•Interpolate between values.
[FR Doc. 84-4076 Filed 2-16-84: 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
APPENDIX N
40 CFR PART 33
FINAL REGULATIONS
-------
Monday
March 28, 1983
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
Procurement Under Assistance
Agreements
-------
12922
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 60 / Monday, M^rch 28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 33
[OA-FBL 2210-3]
Procurement Under Assistance
Agreements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This document makes the
Environmental Protection Agency's Part
33, "Procurement Under Assistance
Agreements," a final rule Part 33
establishes the rules for all procurement
undertaken by recipients of EPA
assistanc |