United States Office of Water EPA 430/9 - 81 - 007
Environmental Protection Program Operations (WH-547) February 1981
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Water
m mm . m
&EPA Generic Facilities Plan
for a Small Community:
Stabilization Pond and
Oxidation Ditch
FRD-
-------
EPA-430/9-81-007
GENERIC FACILITIES PLAN
for a
SMALL COMMUNITY:
STABILIZATION POND AND OXIDATION DITCH
Project Officers
Elaine Stanley
Charles Mooar
February 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
FRD-18
-------
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Water Program
Operations, Facility Requirements Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
Acknowledgement
Technical assistance in the development and design of portions of this
document was provided by Nilo Priede of Priede-Sedgwick, Inc., under
contract to the Facility Requirements Division, Office of Water Program
Operations.
NOTES
To order this publication, "Generic Facilities Plan for a Small
Community: Stabilization Pond and Oxidation Ditch" (FRD-18) from EPA,
write to:
General Services Administration (8BRC)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Please indicate the FRD number and the title of the publication.
Multiple copies may be purchased from:
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22151
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Acknowledgement ii
Contents iii
List of Exhibits vi
Introduction and User Guide
Need and Purpose of Generic Facilities Plans 1
Who, How and When to Decide on a Generic Facilities Plan 2
1. Project Priority List Development 2
2. Preapplication Conference 2
3. Post-Grant Award 4
Organization of the Document 5
Part I: State Screening Process 6
Part II: Generic Facilities Plan 8
1 PRELIMINARY SCREENING 8
2 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 20
2.1 Permits 20
2.2 Groundwater 20
3 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT 20
3.1 Scoping and Incorporation by Reference 20
3.2 Environmental Setting 20
3.3 Project Description, Purpose and Need 21
3.4 Community Characteristics 21
3.5 Alternatives 21
-------
3.6 Impacts of the Proposed Project on the 21
Environment
3.7 Mitigation of Environmental Impacts 21
3.8 Summary of Agency and Public Consultation 21
4 CURRENT SITUATION 22
4.1 Water Quality 22
4.2 Water Supply 22
4.3 Existing Wastewater Facilities 22
4.3.1 Operating Conditions 22
4.3.2 Assessment of Potential Operational 22
Changes
4.4 Infiltration/Inflow Analysis 23
4.4.1 Infiltration/Inflow Procedure 23
4.5 Existing On-Site Disposal Facilities 23
5 FUTURE SITUATION 24
5.1 Wastewater Flow Projections 24
5.1.1 Industrial Flows 24
5.2 On-Site Disposal 24
5.3 Areas of Service of the Proposed 24
Facilities
5.4 Future Environment Without the Project 24
(No Action Alternative)
6 ALTERNATIVES 25
6.1 Treatment Alternatives Eliminated from 25
Consideration
6.2 Generic Plan Alternatives 25
Stabilization Pond 25
Oxidation Ditch 25
-------
6.3 Land Treatment 26
6.4 Conveyance Systems 26
6.5 On-Site Disposal ?.f>
6.6 Cost-Effectiveness Summary 26
7 PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION 27
7.1 Total Program Cost Analysis 27
7.2 Schedule 27
7.3 Plan Adoption 27
7.4 Preliminary Design 27
8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 28
8.1 Public Participation Work Plan 28
8.2 Public Hearings/Meetings 28
8.3 Public Information and Consultations 28
-------
EXHIBITS
Figure 1
TABLE A
Questionnaire 1-1
Questionnaire 1-2
Questionnaire 1-3
Questionnaire 1-4
Figure 2
Questionnaire 1-5
Worksheet #1
Worksheet #2
Worksheet #3
Questionnaire 1-6
Questionnaire 1-7
TABLE 2-1
TABLE 3-1
TABLE 3-2
TABLE 3-3
TABLE 3-4
TABLE 5-1
TABLE 5-2
TABLE 6-l(a)
TABLE 6-l(b)
TABLE 6-2(a)
GENERIC FACILITY PLANNING DECISION PROCESS
STATE SCREENING CRITERIA
COMMUNITY CRITERIA
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
CAPABILITY OF ACHIEVING EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
EXISTING ON-SITE SYSTEMS
METHODS OF SOIL ABSORPTION FIELD
REHABILITATION
NEW ON-SITE SYSTEMS
CLUSTER SYSTEM EVALUATION
USE OF EXISTING CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
TREATMENT/COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
29
30
31
DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC AGENCY CONSULTATION 32
POPULATION FIGURES
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
GENERAL PROJECT DESIGN INFORMATION
STABILIZATION POND EVALUATION FORMAT
OXIDATION DITCH EVALUATION FORMAT
CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE
33
34
36
38
41
45
-------
TABLE 6-2(b)
TABLE 6-3
TABLE 7-1
TABLE 7-2 (a)
TABLE 7-2 (b)
TABLE 8-1
REFERENCES
EXHIBITS (Cont'd)
CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE
CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS EVALUATION FORMAT
COST IMPACT ANALYSIS
STABILIZATION POND DESIGN PARAMETERS
OXIDATION DITCH DESIGN PARAMETERS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
46
47
48
49
50
51
53
VI 1
-------
INTRODUCTION AND USER GUIDE
The wastewater treatment problems and facilities planning issues of
small communities and rural areas are different from those of large
cities or more populated areas. Although different in level of
complexity and in environmental and social impact, the problems are no
less serious. EPA has developed an approach that recognizes these
differences and the nature of small community participation in the
construction grants program. This document is one of the tools for use
by small communities. It contains a generic facilities plan and a
procedure to identify communities with the potential for using the
generic facilities plan.
Need and Purpose of Generic Facilities Plans
EPA has observed that facilities planning for small communities and
rural areas will frequently select one of two solutions as the most
cost-effective. lf_ alternative solutions such as land treatment or
on-site disposal are not feasible, grantees usually select a solution
featuring either a stabilization pond or an oxidation ditch. EPA
research also demonstrates that these two solutions are usually
preferable in terms of cost-effectiveness and performance potential.
EPA has also observed that like other grantees, small communities can
be involved in facilities planning for 2-4 years before reaching a final
solution. But these communities rarely have full time administrative
staff, experience with the regulations and practices of the construction
grants program or experience with the technical engineering or
environmental issues likely to arise in a project. The preparation and
completion of a facilities plan becomes a significant burden to these
grantees and a real deterrent to solving the pollution problem.
Given adequate safeguards to ensure the appropriate consideration of
the costs and environmental benefits of alternatives, directing grantees
to the most likely solution makes sense in terms of saving time and costs
in facilities planning. The generic plan is a simple, brief, easy to use
guide that provides formats and suggestions for presenting basic data and
justifying the use of either a stabilization pond or oxidation ditch with
some allowance for consideration of on-site systems.
Some of the advantages to the State of using a generic plan include:
1.) Minimize the volume of plans to be reviewed;
2.) Improve plant performance through promotion of solutions that
are simple to operate and maintain;
3.) Maximize the use of limited staff resources in other more
complex plans through front-end involvement in this process.
-------
Some of the advantages to the grantee include:
1.) A shorter and less complicated facilities planning process;
2.) Selection of a low cost, easy-to-operate facility;
3.) Priority and attention from state and EPA;
4.) Reducing questions and delays during State and EPA reviews.
Who, How and When to Decide on a Generic Facilities Plan
The decision on whether to use a generic facilities plan must be made
with the participation and cooperation of EPA, the State, the grantee and
its consultant. At various points in the process one or another of these
actors will have a more dominant role, but all concerned should be fully
informed and have an opportunity to participate. As the construction
grants program is increasingly delegated to States for management, the
State rather than EPA will have a lead role. Figure 1 shows the decision
process for generic facilities planning from initial consideration of the
option to plan completion.
1. Project Priority List Development
During the development of the project priority list, the State should
identify those projects that are candidates for use of a generic
facilities plan. This can be accomplished by completing the questions in
Table A. Positive answers to all questions will indicate that a grant
for one of four types of generic facilities plans should be offered. Two
of the four types (stabilization pond and oxidation ditch) are presently
available; on-site management and land treatment plans are still under
development.
The State is encouraged to include both Step 1 (Generic Plans) and
Step 2+3 projects for small communities on its priority list for the same
year so that a project can move quickly into Step 2 design after
completion of the brief generic facilities planning process.
2. Preapplication Conference
Prior to the preapplication conference, the State will notify the
grantee of its intention to offer a grant for a generic facilities plan.
At the preapplication conference, the State should discuss with the
grantee the responses to Table A and other reasons for proposing use of a
generic facilities plan. The grantee may provide data or other
documentation showing why a generic plan approach may or may not be
appropriate. If all parties agree, the results of this joint
consultation will be the submission of a Plan of Study and an award for
Step 1 grant for a generic facilities plan. The State should also
discuss with the grantee those aspects of generic facilities planning and
particular treatment options that will influence consultant selection.
-------
CO
CO
H
8
OJ
CM
CM
CO
w
H
EH
H
A
H
En
O
H
H
W
O
D
O
H
O C
o
OO
oo
o:
o
08
c: CL
c: re ia
c t\J
3 +J -^
i— Q- E a.
o o -Q ai
C T3 3 4->
O n3 t/5 t/1
C_) I I
CD O
O
en
O O.
C
o •
•I— 01
+-> S- C
O CU ro
O> -M i—
r- I— CL
(O
OJ
6 S on
C1J O
« -r- CL
•4-J > O
ro OJ S_
T> S- Q-
! I I
O
•r—
S-
O)
c
O)
en
en
cn
c
•r- 5-
c o
a) >*-
O)
s- -P
o a>
ai
>, 01 O
ro -r- t+- .,-
•i- C •!- +J r—
-t-> c s- o -Q
•i- rO O) ro 3
c: ^- > M- CL
i— i Q- I I
•
en
CLC
ro T- |
1 +->
Id) .
1 ^
.,—
S-
O -P
NVrdS I d3iS
en
01 C
a> -r-
•4-j c:
ra c:
T3 ra
T3 Q.
c
ro O
O -to
S-
>, O) 00
M- C 0
•r- Ol Q-
+-> en i
ai
>
OJ
s_
•=c
o
UJ
^^
1
CD ,—
00
C C
rO O
i- O
CD
O) S-
-o o
-------
3. Post Grant Award
Upon receipt of a Step 1 grant for generic facilities planning, the
grantee and its consultant should verify the assumptions and decisions
made at the preapplication meeting by answering the remaining questions
of the screening process. These are shown as Questionnaires 1-1 to 1-7.
The data used to answer these questions can be incorporated into various
sections of the generic plan. If the responses to any of the
questionnaires indicates a problem with the use of a generic facilities
plan, the grantee should contact the State to discuss the results and the
option of receiving a grant amendment to redirect the effort into full
scale facilities planning or another type of generic facilities plan.
Flexibility
In developing the generic facilities plan, EPA has recognized that
there are other low cost treatment options that may be suitable for a
generic facilities plan approach. Treatment options such as rotating
biological contactors, trickling filters, or controlled discharge ponds
(aerated lagoons) may be potentially less costly than the pond or ditch
option due to climatic or other physical conditions. The generic plan
concept and format are designed to allow substitution of other low cost,
simple to operate technologies as alternatives for consideration. This
can be done after consultation and agreement between the State, EPA,
grantee and consultant.
Other types of projects may also lend themselves to generic
solutions. For example, planning for the upgrade or expansion of systems
that use existing ponds or ditches can easily utilize the generic
facilities plan concept. EPA is also developing generic plans for land
treatment alternatives or for situations where rehabilitation,
maintenance and management of on-site systems are appropriate.
Similarly, States are encouraged to develop their own generic plans in
these areas. It is important to note that the decision to adopt an
on-site management approach for a community should not be made using
strict numerical criteria (e.g. 5% of households are served by on-site
systems). Rather the decision must be made with a consideration of the
number of systems involved and the nature of the overall community waste
disposal. Questionnaires 1-4 to 1-6 of the plan will assist in this
determination.
A caveat must be added here regarding potential abuse of the generic
approach. The screening process has been carefully designed to eliminate
from consideration planning situations where more costly solutions such
as advanced treatment are required or complicating factors such as
environmentally sensitive areas are present. States are encouraged to
adjust the screening process to reflect their own program priorities,
however, the generic facilities plan should not be used in such
situations as a means to circumvent facilities planning requirements.
-------
The goals of the generic plan approach are to make the facilities
planning process as simple and as flexible as possible for those
situations in which the problem is easily identified and simply solved.
An attitude of openness, flexibility and cooperation between all actorc
is required to achieve these aims.
Organization of Document
The remainder of this document presents material relevant tc ; iig a
generic facilities plan. Part I presents the preliminary screening
questions that the State must answer affirmatively prior to making a
final decision on a generic plan. Part II presents the generic
facilities plan including the initial questions that must be answered to
provide data to complete facilities planning. The complete text of the
generic facilities plans is presented with all the tables and proposed
formats placed at the end. This is intended to make reading of the plan
easier and to emphasize its brevity.
-------
PART I
STATE SCREENING PROCESS
The State should first review the preliminary screening questions
(Table A) and adjust them as appropriate for situations particularly
characteristic to its projects. If, for example, 90% of its communities
have a population of less than 10,000 and a growth rate of 30% will
represent a significant disruption, the State may want to adjust the
population or growth rate criteria downward. Or if there are significant
coastal areas whose protection is an identified high priority to the
State, the State may choose to exclude all communities in such areas from
consideration of the generic facilities plan option. These adjustments
to the screening questions should be made prior to consideration of any
specific community as eligible and after consultation (and approval if in
an undelegated State) by EPA.
Upon final approval by EPA of the screening process, the State should
proceed to use it in evaluating all potential Step 1 grant recipients in
the upcoming fiscal year for eligibility for a generic plan. If a
community meets all of the criteria set by the State, the State should
indicate its intent to offer a grant for a generic facilities plan in its
notification of a preapplication or post award conference.
-------
Table A
State Screening Questions
for Selection of Generic Facilities Plan Candidates
1. Population Criteria
a. Current population is less than 10,000
b. Projected population growth is less than 30% of current
population
c. Industrial flow and organic loading must always be less than the
domestic flow and organic loading
2. Proposed effluent limits do not require advanced treatment.
3. Any other criteria that the State finds appropriate, e.g. presence of
environmentally sensitive areas, or other physical conditions that
would preclude the use of available generic facilities plan options.
-------
PART II
GENERIC FACILITIES PLAN
STABILIZATION POND OR OXIDATION DITCH
SECTION 1
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
1.0 The generic facilities planning process is based upon
preliminary screening to ensure the appropriate use of the
generic technology options for a given small community. If
possible, the preliminary screening should be completed at a
preapplication conference with input from the State, grantee and
its consultant. However, lack of available data on critical
areas or the inability of the grantee to hire a consultant may
require that the preliminary screening be completed after a
grant award has been made.
Questionnaires 1-1 through 1-7 (and associated worksheets and
figures) are designed to aid the State and the grantee in making
appropriate decisions regarding generic facilities planning.
The screening process should be completed during the first
phases of the facilities planning and provide data for first
public meeting (see Section 8, Public Participation and Table
8-1).
-------
Questionnaire 1-1
1. EPA/State approved current facilities planning population estimates
for the planning area must be less than 10,000.
2. EPA/State approved projected population growth over the next 20 years
(including non-residential growth) must be less than 30 percent of
the current population. Non-residential growth must be considered in
terms of population equivalents.
3. Industrial dischargers are not and will not be a problem. The
generic plans are only applicable to municipalities in which the
industrial flow and organic loading is less than 50 percent of the
total flow, and in which the industrial influent is compatible with
treatment of normal domestic flow.
-------
Questionnaire 1-2
To evaluate whether an EIS should be required, the State, with the
aid of the grantee, should answer the following questions.
YES NO 1. Does the service area include and designated
floodplains, wetlands, or wild and scenic rivers?
YES NO 2. Will the treatment facilities, interceptors, force
mains or collectors be located in or adjacent to
floodplains or wetlands?
YES NO 3. Will the proposed project result in the removal of
any prime agricultural land from production?
YES NO 4. Will the project or the routing of interceptors,
force mains or collectors result in the subsequent
development of floodplains, wetlands or areas in
agricultural production?
YES NO 5. Will the proposed project result in any adverse
impact on critical resource areas identified in the
State Coastal Zone Management Plan?
YES NO 6. Does the proposed service area contain any endangered
or threatened species identified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service?
YES NO 7. Will the proposed project result in discharges of
pollutants that would preclude the use of surface
waters or aquifers as present or future public water
supplies?
YES NO 8. Will any archaeological or historic sites be affected
by the project?
YES NO 9. Are any other impacts in terms of health and safety,
air quality, odor, noise levels, land use trends,
transportation and energy production or consumption,
anticipated as a result of the proposed project?
A brief discussion must be provided for any "yes" response. This
discussion must describe the potential impact and any mitigation measures
that could be implemented to reduce the impact.
Since preparing an EIS requires analysis of several alternatives, it
is not appropriate to use the generic plan which is intended to simplify
the facilities planning process. If it can be determined that an EIS
will be required, the grantee must develop a full facilities plan and an
amended grant should be requested. If, however, this review fails to
identify a need for an EIS, the grantee should proceed to develop a more
detailed environmental review early in the facilities plan development.
10
-------
Questionnaire 1-3
Can the effluent limitations set by the NPDES permit be achieved with
the use of a stabilization pond or oxidation ditch? Listed below are
effluent qualities that are obtainable from these technologies. If the
limitations cannot be met with these technologies alone, either a land
treatment option or a full facilities plan must be considered.
Stabilization Ponds
8005, mg/1
COD, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
Total P, mg/1
NH3-N, mg/1
Oxidation Ditches **
Effluent (mg/1)
BOD
SS
Winter
15.2
13.6
Summer
11.2
9.3
Annual
Average
12.3
10.5
In
210
400
230
11
20
Winter
92
93
Out
30
100
60
8
15 (cool climate)
1 (warm climate)
Removal, Percent
Summer
94
94
Annual
Average
93
94
Note: Oxidation ditches are capable of 95% to 99% nitrification and
nitrogen removal when properly designed and operated.
**
The average performance of 29 shallow oxidation ditch plants is
summarized in the following: U.S. EPA, "A Comparison of Oxidation
Ditch Plants to Completing Processes for Secondary and Advanced
Treatment of Municipal Wastes," Report No. EPA 60012-78-051 (March
1978).
11
-------
Questionnaire 1-4
Existing On-Site Systems
1. Are there any existing on-site systems within the planning area that
are failing?
( ) yes proceed to next question
( ) no generic plan may be suitable
2. Are the causes of failure known?
( ) yes proceed to next question
( ) no generic plan may not be suitable
3. Review the on-site system data requirements provided in Worksheet #3
of Questionnaire 1-5 and the list of corrective measures in Figure
2. Considering the lot sizes and other physical characteristics of
existing development, could the existing systems be modified or
rehabilitate the system?
( ) yes generic plan may not be suitable and the use of a
on-site management plan should be considered
( ) no generic plan may be suitable
1Z
-------
ec.
O
•=> QL.
o a:
•— o
u.
(O S-
3 0)
QJ JD
4-> O
Ln -4->
(C U
zs o
+j in
>S> 5 C\J
C -t-1 1-H
O i/l O
>> I
. CX) O
r— CO
fa i — i
3 rff .—i
C on ^
ro O
-------
Questionnaire 1-5
New On-Site Systems
Instructions:
1. Fill out worksheet #1 for each community or section within the
planning area that has different physical characteristics (e.g. soil
conditions, groundwater tables). This worksheet should be filled out for
any areas that may need completely new on-site systems, even if the new
systems would replace an existing failing system. Most of the
information requested on this form can be obtained from soil surveys
published by the Soil Conservation Services. SCS soil surveys should
only be used for preliminary analysis and should not be used as a
replacement for a field investigation.
2. Compare the information provided in each worksheet(s) #1 to the
on-site system requirements presented in Worksheet #3 and complete
worksheet #2. Worksheet #2 is completed by filling out columns (1)
through (5) in order.
3. Any on-site systems identified in column (5) of any worksheet #2,
should be considered in the facilities plan for that particular area. If
only one area within the planning area is considered suitable for on-site
systems, the community may still want to use a generic facilities plan.
However, if on-site systems are considered suitable for several areas,
the generic facilities plan may not be appropriate.
14
-------
Community:
WORKSHEET # 1 FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 1-5
Lot Size:
Soil Condition:
Groundwater Table:
Evaporation Rate:
Rainfall:
Topography:
Depth to Bedrock:
15
-------
,. *.
ID
•+^*
s — •*
>*
LO
,_
UJ
o:
i — i
<
z
z
o
1— *
1—
oo
LU
Z3 ^~"s
cr co
*~-x
o:
0
u_
C\J
=*=
1—
LU
LU
I/O
i£
C£
O
3
^— ^
CM
^"
>- ~ _ ^
4->
• r—
C
3
1
CJ
1
-^ jc »
<3- -4-> >>
-^•r- S. _E
SO) Q.
C -C fO
•r- T3 +J C" S-
cu o «/> cn^^
to +j c o •
E
+J O)
tO Q. tO fO
>> O -l-> S- to «
to -i-
^ JQ -r- -I- .C TCI
(J i— 01 O E
•r- C C 3 •!-
-C "3 C O I/O t—
3 O -r- O -— - O
_^
C O
•r- CU C 0
.0 T- S_
tO JC T3
E C 4-> Ol
Ol (O -r- JO
4-> O S
t/1 ll
VI *+•"
>,co -a o
tO O)
c +-> to c^-
.c E -c
0 3 i- -r- +->
•r- i— a> E Q.
J^ O Q--r- Ol
3 O O r- 13
tO "
E to
to ai cu E
E -Q 4-> (D
QJ a> C" to +->
-(-> C -C O) >> tO
to fO -Mi — to >>• — »
>) O C J3 to OO
to T— M— (O T3
'-•-E O -l-> C C
a> co •(-> 3 o c
£ > r- tO i_ O •!- E
4-> S 4-> O) E 4-) 3
c c: -t-> res i—
I+-E-O-I-(Oci — "3c
OOS-t03O>-'-
•r- OJ C O C
-C C Q. O S- t— i M-
3 -i- O O OV — ' a3 ••-
c to
OJ •>
E r~~ mr~ 4"* ^"
55 — 01 to E
i % -^ rt)
+-1 ^*> M^
to C T3 P- to 4-> - — -
>•> E <1J w to <—
tO 3 r— C -O >>«— '
i — • — O C I/)
a> o ns -i- ^ c
jC o -l-> +-> O QJ E
-t-" to -i— £ -i_> 3
£Z CT kj 'O ^^
<+- -r- -i- c cu s- o
O O T3 O O
T3 O> O 3 Q.
JC O) J3 i— "3 C
o +-> •— o > •<-
•r- to c •>- c: ai
JC •!- (O O ••- 4-
3 i— 0 tO~_^oa -r-
tO O"
E w
ai cu
+^ N
to -i-
>->T3 to
to •— o
+j re i —
•r™ 1 ^
tO tO CU
1 C JC
c -i- +->
0
QJ C
-C a=> T-
Of—
-k_
•r- C +->
f— /rt «r—
Jk» (U ^^
302
16
-------
UJ
ZD
cr
ct:
o
co
=«=
GO
Qi
O
o
-c o
4-> S_
Q.T3
QJ O)
Q OQ
o
•r—
O) S-
Q-4->
O to
i— +->
CL "3
OJ S
Q T3
C
E ^
3 O
E i-
•i- O
O)
r— O)
CJ Qi
O)
O O)
oo o;
E 0>
13 M
CO
>>
oo
O)
Q.
o
Q.
O)
OO
TD
O)
•r-
4-
QJ
O)
fD
T3
o
e
-a
O)
CO
c
o
o
Q.
to
Q. to
to e
c a)
to +j
S_ tO
o c/")
Q.
(T3
o
ai
-------
Questionnaire 1-6
Cluster System Evaluation
Is there a small group of households located close together for which: a)
connection to a centralized system may not be cost-effective because of
distances or other physical barriers; or b) on-site systems may not be
feasible or cost-effective?
If the response to this question is "yes", cluster systems should be
evaluated for these households. If there are only one or two cluster systems
that should be evaluated, the generic facilities plan may still be used. If,
however, there are several cluster systems to be evaluated, a full facilities
plan should be developed.
18
-------
Questionnaire 1-7
Use of Existing Centralized Facilities
1. Are there existing centralized treatment facilities within or close
to the planning area?
( ) yes proceed to next question.
( ) no generic facilities plan may be suitable.
2. Could these facilities, with possible modifications, be used to treat
wastewater generated in all or part of the planning area? The
following factors should be evaluated when evaluated when answering
this question:
Age of facilities
Condition and capacity of existing facilities
Plant expansion plan, if any
Potential cost-effectiveness of using these facilities
(consider distances and possible physical barriers such as
topography)
If the existing centralized facility consistently violates NPDES
permit limitations and plant performance becomes a limiting factor in
evaluating the alternative of using the existing facility, a Composite
Correction Program (CCP) must be undertaken to identify the causes of
poor plant performance. The problem areas to be addressed in this CCP
evaluation include design, performance monitoring, operation,
maintenance, and administration. The CCP evaluation procedure is
presented in the Protocol for the Composite Correction Program which will
be available in early 1981.
( ) yes proceed to next question.
( ) no generic facilities plan may be suitable.
3. Do these facilities involve the use of a stabilization pond or
oxidation ditch?
( ) yes generic facilities plan may be suitable.
( ) no develop a full facilities plan.
19
-------
SECTION 2
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
2.1 Permits - Attach a copy of the applicable NPDES and State (if
any) permits. Summarize the effluent limitations (Table 2-1)
contained in the permits or otherwise established by the State.
Seasonal limitations or other variances should be highlighted.
If the permit requires modification, then provide details.
2.2 Groundwater - Summarize any State and/or EPA groundwater
discharge criteria and attach a copy (if applicable). See EPA
groundwater discharge criteria set forth in the criteria for
Best Practical Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT).
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DOCUMENT
3.1 Scoping and Incorporation by Reference - The grantee must
provide an environmental information document (EID) for the
State to use in preparing a preliminary environmental
assessment. The State should use the preapplication screening
process to determine the scope of the environmental analysis.
When appropriate, information developed during the screening
should be incorporated into the EID by citing a particular
reference or document. Since duplication of information within
the facilities plan should be avoided, the reader should be
directed to any sections of the facilities plan that contain the
information required in an EID.
3.2 Environmental Setting - The screening process performed by the
State identified environmentally sensitive features within the
planning area (e.g. wetlands, flood plains, recharge areas,
plant life, wildlife, historic or archaeological sites, etc.).
Provide a brief but adequate description of such features. When
available, use standarized data sources provided by the State.
Map overlays, reference studies and inventories prepared by
local, State or Federal agencies may be used to describe
sensitive environmental areas and the planning constraints
related to such features. Where necessary, obtain letters from
State or Federal representatives supporting the description of
environmental features. Contact with the State Archaeologist or
Historical Preservation Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service,
etc., may be required.
20
-------
3.3 Project Description, Purpose and Need - Briefly describe the
proposed project (using a synopsis of the public information
distributed per Section 8). Provide a brief discussion
demonstrating the need for the proposed project, including a
justification for any planned sewerage expansion. Refer the reader
to appropriate portions of Section 2 (Effluent Limitations) and
Section 4 (Current Situation) for discussions of service area
characteristics and existing water quality needs.
3.4 Community Characteristics - Describe the physical and demographic
characteristics of the planning area. Current maps showing the
community's development patterns, land use and primary physical
features can be used in place of narrative description. Tables and
lists can be used to present the population data, as well as
information on industries and major institutional installations in
the service area. Historical population data should be based on
census figures, while projected conditions must be consistent with
the EPA approved State disaggregation of population forecasts
prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of
Commerce. Table 3-4 is the preferred format for presenting this
information.
3.5 Alternatives - Refer the reader to Section 5.4 (No Action
Alternative) and Section 6 (Alternatives) for a discussion of the
alternatives considered during facilities planning.
3.6 Impacts of the Proposed Project on the Environment - Based on the
initial appraisal of potential impacts conducted during the
preapplication screening process and additional information
developed during facilities planning, complete the questionnaire
presented in Table 3-1. A brief discussion must be provided for
any "yes" responses. Note any differences with the responses made
during the initial appraisal. The narrative must evaluate both
direct and indirect effects of the project on sensitive
environmental areas. A summary of environmental impacts of
treatment and collection alternatives may be provided in a format
such as Table 3-2.
3.7 Mitigation of Environmental Impacts - Discuss any proposed
mitigation measures that will minimize the environmental effects of
the proposed project.
3.8 Summary of Agency and Public Consultation - For public consultation
efforts the reader should be referred to Section 8 (Public
Participation). If public agencies or environmental groups have
been consulted during the development of the facilities plan,
documentation should be provided in a format similar to Table 3-3.
21
-------
SECTION 4
CURRENT SITUATION
4.1 Water Quality - Describe existing water quality conditions in the
receiving stream(s) and groundwaters of the service area. A
summary of the Water Quality Standards and a description of known
violations of the standards should be provided, if not already
provided in the discussion in Section 2. In cases where no data
are available, general observations (e.g., fish kills, seasonal
heavy loads, etc.) should be given. Descriptions of fisheries or
recreational activities found in a given area can be useful
indicators of background conditions.
4.2 Water Supply - An inventory of existing public water supplies in
the service area and measures taken to assure protection of the
community's water supply must be presented. The information
presented should identify the location and source of water
supplies, existing and potential capacity, type of construction,
type of treatment, and future water supply plans.
4.3 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities - Tables, maps and brief
narratives should be used to describe the existing sewerage
system. The description must identify all system components,
including the routing and sizing of collectors and interceptors,
the location and capacity of pump stations, lift stations and
forcemains, the layout and type of treatment plant process, the
location of any outfall, and facilities and practices for the
ultimate disposal of sludge or septic tank pumpings.
4.3.1 Operating Conditions - Describe the capacity of the existing system
and operating conditions found at major pump stations and treatment
plant(s). Include a statement on the number of people served by
each system component. The performance of the existing system
should be described using records on the frequency of power outages
and mechanical breakdowns in the system, and the efficiency of the
treatment plant during varying operating conditions (including the
seasonal impact of industrial discharges on the treatment works).
Performance data should be summarized in tables depicting past
operating and monitoring results. A minimum of one year's past
record is desirable.
4.3.2 Assessment of Potential Operational Changes - If secondary-type
treatment facilities exist, the existing treatment works must be
evaluated to identify any operational and maintenance improvements
that would enable the plant to meet permit conditions. The
Composite Correction Program (CCP) screening evaluation should be
used to accomplish this. Based on the evaluation, the feasibility
of upgrading the existing system to meet future needs should be
determined. When appropriate, existing system components should be
used in conjunction with a generic plan technology.
22
-------
4.4 I/I Analysis - Extraneous infiltration/inflow water will usually
have an insignificant effect on the level of treatment achieved by
a lagoon. For oxidation ditches, the design of freeboard for
secondary clarifiers may have to account for peak wet weather
flows. State certification that I/I is not problem can be used in
lieu of a full I/I analysis. If the State has not provided the
certification, provide an analysis using the procedure outlined
below.
4.4.1 I/I Procedure - Based on flow records at the treatment facility,
water use records and the number of people served by the system,
determine the maximum rate of infiltration and inflow using a 7-day
average over a 12-month period (See notes to Table 5-1). If the
I/I rate is less than 3,000 gallons/day/inch of pipe diameter/mile
of sewer, the rate is considered nonexcessive. Up to 8,000 gidm
may be justified on a case-by-case basis. The calculation of the
system footage must include the service laterals.
If the above rate is exceeded, an analysis of the costs of reducing
I/I versus the costs of transportation and treatment must be
provided. Include an analysis of the impact on transport
capacities. Identify the most cost-effective approach for removing
extraneous water from the system. Identify all known system
problem areas (pipe cave-ins, crushed pipe, by-pass points, inflow
cross connections, groundwater conditions, etc.) and describe any
remedial measures.
4.5 Existing On-Site Disposal Facilities - Describe those portions of
the community currently served by septic tank/soil adsorption
fields or other on-site systems. The location of existing
facilities, the number of people served, the performance of the
systems, and the method of septage disposal must be described
through the use of maps, tables and brief narratives. Identify any
soil or groundwater conditions that may impair the effectiveness of
on-site treatment and disposal.
23
-------
SECTION 5
FUTURE SITUATION
5.1 Wastewater Flow Projections - The present and projected wastewater
flows of the service area over a 20-year period must be presented.
The total demand is determined by summing each user class plus the
contribution from infiltration/inflow. The analysis should define
the wastewater service needs for all types of users (residential,
institutional, commercial and industrial) within the service area
by documenting the water use patterns exhibited by each class.
(The notes to Table 5-1 present the maximum allowable water usage
rates for undocumented situations.) Present hydraulic demand in
the format provided in Table 5-1. Present the current and design
organic and solids loadings at the treatment works as in Table 5-2.
5.1.1 Industrial - The compatibility, strength and volume of influent
from industrial users must be evaluated for impacts upon the
existing and future systems. The screening process limits the use
of a generic plan to situations in which the industrial flow and
loading is less than the domestic contribution, and in which
industrial discharges are compatible with the treatment options
provided. If an industry contributes more than 10 percent of the
flows or loadings at the treatment works, a special letter of
intent is required (see Table 5-2).
5.2 On-site Disposal - The continued use of on-site treatment is
encouraged, provided that water supply and public health standards
can be met. Identify areas where the population densities and
soils are such that on-site treatment can be utilized. Site
specific data on public water supply, densities, population
presently served, topography/geology, and soil suitability must be
developed for each on-site area. If density conditions are
expected to change (to the extent that on-site disposal will be
precluded), deferred (5, 10, 15 and 20 years) implementation of the
generic plan should also be considered.
5.3 Service Areas for the Proposed Facility - Based on environmental
constraints, projected growth and the suitability of using on-site
disposal, define the service area for the proposed facilities.
Describe those areas in which sewer service will not be provided.
5.4 Future Environment without the Project (No Action) - The future
environmental conditions without the project must be analyzed in
terms of water quality, public health and general environmental
impacts. Use the analysis presented in Section 4.1 Water Quality
and Section 4.2 Water Supply to project future conditions without
the project. Copies of letters from State Health Department and
Water Supply officials can be used as supporting information.
24
-------
SECTION 6
ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Treatment Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration - Since the
screening process for generic plans is designed to focus small
community facilities planning on the most appropriate technology,
the screening process itself provides the justification for
eliminating non-generic alternatives from consideration. The
grantee's consultant should review the decisions reached during the
screening process to ensure that non-generic alternatives do not
have substantial cost or other advantages.
6.2 Generic Plan Alternatives - Based on a consideration of effluent
limitations, other State criteria and receiving stream water
quality and flow characteristics, evaluate the design and operation
of the generic plan options (see below). Consult Sections 2.0 and
4.1 for the seasonal flow and water quality characteristics of the
receiving waters. The available discharge options (continuous,
seasonal or no discharge), must be identified. If several
discharge options are possible, the most cost-effective must be
identified based on preliminary designs and cost comparisons.
(CAPDET may be used for these cost comparisons.)
Stabilization Pond: The stabilization pond (aerobic, facultative,
anaerobic) is the preferred generic plan option. At the beginning
of facilities planning (or during the preapplication screening, if
possible), the grantee's consultant should determine the
appropriateness of a stabilization pond for the given community,
taking into account factors such as water quality standards (a
controlled discharge pond cambe considered as an option), the
availability of suitable land, and prevailing land costs. If the
use of a stabilization pond is considered appropriate, then siting
and design work may proceed based upon accepted engineering
practices and state standards for the design of stabilization
ponds. (Table 6-1 (a) presents an example of an evaluation format.)
Oxidation Ditch: If a community is unable to utilize the option of
a stabilization pond, the next preferred option is a controlled
discharge pond or the oxidation ditch technology. (Table 6-l(b)
presents an example of an evaluation format for oxidation
ditches.) In certain climatological or geographic areas, rotating
biological contactors (RBCs) should also be considered.
Engineering judgment based on local conditions and costs must be
used in selecting the best technology.
The references included at the end of this document are recommended
by EPA for providing design criteria for stabilization ponds and
oxidation ditches. However, States may have their own specific
criteria that must be followed; grantees and their consultants are
25
-------
encouraged to discuss and agree upon the design criteria to be used
with the State, and EPA if appropriate, before proceeding further.
6.3 Land Treatment - The evaluation of land treatment technologies is
required in the construction grants regulations. In all cases
where land treatment is not selected, the facilities plan must
describe the reasons for rejecting that option. If land treatment
is a viable option, the use of a generic plan must be discontinued
and a full facilities plan prepared. Therefore, the land treatment
option should be investigated as soon as possible by the grantee's
consultant.
Most of the evaluation can be based on analysis performed by the
State during the preapplication screening process. The evaluation
provided in this section of the plan must cover the "first phase"
items specified under "Specific Guidance" (IV B) in PRM 79-3
(Revision of Agency Guidance for the Evaluation of Land Treatment
Alternatives Employing Surface Application). CAPDET may be used to
assist in the preparation of cost estimates. Realistic cash value
anticipated from crop sales should be included as a cost offset in
the analysis for each year of operation. Under certain
circumstances, the seasonal use of land treatment in combination
with periodic surface water discharges should be considered.
6.4 Conveyance System - The analysis of the existing sewage collection
and transmission system presented in Section 4.3 should have
identified any need for repair, rehabilitation or replacement of
the existing system. The analysis presented in Sections 5.2 and
5.3 identified areas where on-site treatment and disposal is
appropriate and addressed the expansion of the collection system
into presently unsewered areas. If a decision has been made that
replacement or expansion of the collection system is required, the
engineering evaluation must consider various alternative collection
and transmission systems. In developing the cost-effectiveness
analysis, the incentives for using innovative and alternative
conveyance systems such as small diameter gravity pipe, pressure or
vacuum sewers must be taken into account. Table 6-3 presents an
example of the principal consideration needed for the analysis.
6.5 On-Site Disposal - The analysis presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3
identified areas suitable for the continued use of individual or
cluster on-site systems. The rehabilitation of systems in use
before December 27, 1980 is grant-eligible and can qualify for an
85 percent grant for innovative and alternative technologies, if
the community has an comprehensive on-site system management plan.
6.6 Cost-Effectiveness Summary - Using tables, present a summary of the
costs of the proposed facilities. Use the format presented in
Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
26
-------
SECTION 7
PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 Total Program Cost - Using tables and charts, present an
analysis of the impact of the costs of the facilities on the
community and individual users. Total program costs, the share
provided by various funding sources, and user rates should be
summarized. Distribute the summarized cost estimates throughout
the community before the final public hearing to adopt the
recommended plan. Table 7-1 provides an example of a format for
presenting costs.
7.2 Schedule - Based on the community's position on the State
priority list, discharge permit conditions and the level of
commitment by the general public and their elected officials, an
implementation schedule should be developed. The schedule
should reflect specific actions required by local, State, and
Federal officials. The need for any project phasing must be
discussed.
7.3 Plan Adoption - An official action on the part of the
implementing authority (usually by formal resolution) is
needed. A copy of the adopting resolution should be included in
the facilities plan to document support for the plan within the
community. In multiple jurisdictional areas, each jurisdiction
must adopt similar resolutions. Responsibility for implementing
each program element must be clearly defined and formally
supported by resolution from each party involved.
7.4 Preliminary Design - Prepare preliminary engineering designs for
the recommended plan. Present design parameters for the
facility in Table 7-2. The designs must consider site specific
characteristics, conveyance system sizing and routing, the
layout and sizing of the treatment process, and the layout of
the final disposal system. The higher level of engineering
detail will provide a basis for realistic capital and
operation/maintenance cost estimates and therefore, establish a
sound base for evaluating user costs. Include a summary of the
operation and maintenance requirements for the treatment
facility. From this preliminary engineering layout, prepare
construction and O&M cost estimates.
-------
SECTION 8
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
8.1 Public Participation Work Plan - Outline the various activities
that were identified in the public participation work plan. The
basic requirements of a program designed for small communities
using a generic facilities plan is presented in Table 8-1.
8.2 Public Meetings/Hearings - Briefly describe the meetings and
hearings that were held during the planning process. Summarize the
issues raised at such meetings and attach copies of the
responsiveness summaries.
8.3 Public Information and Consultations - Briefly describe fact
sheets, mailings, and media releases used during the planning
process, including mechanisms for distributions such as postings in
public buildings, public places (barber shops, groceries, etc.),
spot news releases, etc.
28
-------
Pollutant
BOD5
SS
NH3 -N
Phosphorus (P)
Fecal Coliform
TABLE 2-1
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Effluent Limit (mg/1)
29
-------
TABLE 3-1
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following questionnaire should be used during the preapplication
screening process and during the development of the facilities plan to
identify sensitive environmental issues. "Yes" responses must be
discussed in Section 3.6 of the plan. Any differences with the responses
made at the preapplication conference should be noted and explained.
YES NO 1. Does the service area include any designated
floodplains, wetlands, or wild and scenic rivers?
YES NO 2. Will the treatment facility, interceptors, force
mains or collectors be located in or adjacent to
floodplains or wetlands?
YES NO 3. Will the proposed project result in the removal of
any prime agricultural land from production?
YES NO 4. Will the project or the routing of interceptors,
force mains or collectors result in the subsequent
development of floodplains, wetlands or areas in
agricultural production?
YES NO 5. Will the proposed project result in any adverse
impact on critical resource areas identified in the
State Coastal Zone Management Plan?
YES NO 6. Does the proposed service area contain any
endangered or threatened species identified by the
Fish and Wildlife Service?
YES NO 7. Will the project result in discharges of pollutants
that would preclude using surface waters or
aquifers as public water supplies?
YES NO 8. Will any archaeological or historic sites be
affected by the project?
YES NO 9. Are any other impacts in terms of air quality,
odor, noise levels, land use trends, energy
production or consumption, etc. anticipated as a
result of the proposed project?
30
-------
TABLE 3-2
SUMMARY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TREATMENT/COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES
EXAMPLE
CATEGORY OF IMPACT
Population Growth
Rate
Maintenance of
Community Character
Water
Quality
Groundwater
Hydrology
Agricultural/Open
Space Preservation
Wetlands/Flood
Plains
Historic/
Archaeological
Air
Quality
ALTERNATIVE
1
< M M S
MM
*
*
+
etc.
ALTERNATIVE
2
N M M S
0
0
+
1
ALTERNATIVE
3
N M M 5
0
0
+
* Adverse Impact
+ Beneficial Impact
o No Impact
Note: Each alternative should be assessed in terms of expected impacts
on the future environment without the project (i.e. no action
alternative).
31
-------
TABLE 3-3
DOCUMENTATION OF PUBLIC AGENCY CONSULTATION
Attached
A. A-95 Clearinghouse Comments
B. 208 Area Wide Water Quality Management Agency Comments
C. State Historic Preservation Officer's Comments
D. State (or professional) Archaeologist's Comments
E. Fish and Wildlife Comments
F. Section 404 and Section 10 Permits
G. Other
32
-------
YEAR
1950
1960
1970
1980 (Estimated)
1990 Projected
2000 Projected
TABLE 3-4
POPULATION FIGURES
POPULATION
DATA SOURCE
U.S. Census
U.S. Census
(BEA disaggregation)
(BEA disaggregation)
33
-------
TABLE 5-1
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
Population:
Sewered Population
(No. of Persons)
Industrial Population
Equivalent (PE)
Industrial Area
(acres)
Design Population
Base Flow:
Residential Flow
(mgd)
Industrial Flow
(mgd)
Average Base Flow (mgd)
Existing Average I/I
(mgd)
Design Flow
(mgd)
Peak Flow:
Maximum Daily Residential
Flow (mgd)
Maximum Daily Industrial
Flow (mgd)
Maximum Daily Base
Flow (mgd)
Peak I/I
(mgd)
Total Daily Peak Flows
(mgd)
Present
1990
2000
(see Notes to Table on next page)
34
-------
NOTES TO TABLE 5-1
A. Total Average Daily = Q/\g + Average Infiltration/Inflow
(To be used for design of treatment facility hydraulic capacity)
Q/\B = Average Base Flow = Annual Average Daily Residential
+ Commercial Flow + Annual Average Daily Industrial Flow.
o Average Residential, Commercial and Institutional
Use = 60-70 gpcd for populations less than 5000
(others use 65-80 gcpd) unless other flow figures
are documented by local water use records.
o Industrial - for significant dischargers the flow
must be documented; for minor dry industries a per
acre contribution is needed; 1000 to 2000 gad are
common.
Average Infiltration/Inflow - A calculated value based on
annual flow as follows:
Total Annual Flow - Total Annual Q/\B
_ =GPD I/I
365 day/yr.
A system estimate based on an allowable I/I value of 500
gallons per day per inch diameter mile (gidm) for new sewer
systems or an allowance of 3000 gidm for existing sewer
systems.
B. Total Daily Peak = QPB + Peak Infiltration/Inflow
(To be used for design of hydraulic pumping and conveyance capacity)
QpB = Peak Base Flow = PF X Q/\B
o Peaking Factor - (Engineer's choice) a common factor
is:
PF = 18 +
-------
TABLE 5-2
GENERAL PROJECT DESIGN INFORMATION
Current Population:_
Design Population:
_Design Year:
Source of Design Population:
A. Project Loadings:
Present Industrial
Hydraulic (Avg) (mgd)
Hydraulic (Peak) (mgd)
Organic (BOD5/day)
Sus. Solid (Ibs/day)
Other
PE (basis )
Design
Hydraulic (Avg) (mgd)
Hydraulic (Peak) (mgd)
Organic (BODs/day)
Sus. Solid (Ibs/day)
Other
PE (basis )
B. List Industrial Contributors:
Flow BOD
Name of Industry gpd Ib/day
Domestic &
Commercial
I/I
Total
SS
Ib/day
Flow
9Pd
BOD
Ib/day
SS
Ib/day
Is letter of intent required from any of the above industrial
contributors?
Yes No Attached
C. Basis of design flows and loadings:
D. Any project components 100% industrial?
No Yes (Attach
description)
(SEE NOTES ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
36
-------
NOTES FOR TABLE 5-2
Use the hydraulic demand developed in Table 5-1.
The strength of the domestic and commercial wastewater should be
based on local analysis. Samples taken in areas with no
industrial contribution and during an extended dry weather
period to minimize the impact of I/I are desirable. If this
information is not available or obtainable, literature
values can be used, i.e., BOD5 of 150 to 250 mg/1 and SS of
150 to 250 mg/1.
Other design parameter that could be needed, i.e., NH3, toxic
substances (heavy metals, organic) would be documented similar
to the organic solids loading criteria.
Institutional contributions are addressed on a case-by-case
basis.
Industrial process wastewater contributions must be documented
with site specific sampling and analysis. Account for seasonal
variations.
37
-------
TABLE 6-l(a)
STABILIZATION POND
EVALUATION FORMAT
A. Receiving Stream Controls:
(1) Base Flow (7/Q/10) Load Allocation - Wastewater Effluent
Characteristics
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
BOD5 =
BOD5 =
S.S.
S.S.
D.O.
D.O.
Others
mg/1 @ MI
mq/1 @ Mi
mg/1 @
mg/1 @
mg/1 @
mg/1 P
- as needed - NH3, P, etc.
(Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
(2) Seasonal Sustained High^, Load Allocation - Wastewater
Effluent Characteristics
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(f)
(9)
(3) Stream Gauging Information Needed
BOD5 -
BOD5 =
S.S. -
S.S
D.O.
D.O. -
D.O.
Others -
mg/1 @
mg/1 @
mg/1 (P
mg/1 @
mg/1 @
mg/1 @
mg/1 @
as needed - NH3, P,
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
etc.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Agency responsible - U.S.G.S., State, Other
Location of gauge (Map) .
Type of gauge .
Years of record .
Stage/Discharge Curves^ .
Flow Frequency Analysis^ .
B. Process/Operation Selection:
(1) Based on load allocations at 7/Q/10 stream flow, can a
continuous discharge be maintained? Yes No _
(2) Under the base condition, will an exemption on S.S. be
required? Yes No
Ifiased on site specific stage and frequency analysis; 94 percent yield
assurance targeted.
38
-------
TABLE 6-l(a) (Cont'd)
(3) Is a no discharge system feasible? Yes No
present details.
(a) groundwater impacts
(b) evaporation/rainfall analysis
(c) allowable percolation rate used
(d) odors/nuisance controls
(e) land availability
(4) Based on load allocation for seasonal releases, define storage
periods and corresponding volumes required.
(5) Process controls used - state all criteria used.
(a) number of cells
(b) flow sheet, parallel, series, combination
(c) surface 8005 loading rates Ibs/ac/day
(d) minimum holding period per cell days
(e) depth of cells
(f) allowable percolation rate in/day @ feet of head
(g) seal coat, liner need? Yes No
(h) recirculation capabilities
(i) overflow structure, fixed or variable height
C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Present Worth and Average Annual
Equivalent Cost
(1) Discount Rate - presently set @ 7-3/8 percent, verify at time
of analysis
(2) Planning Period - 20 years
(3) Useful Life - See item 7 below
(4) Salvage Value - straight line depreciation, 20 yr./Useful Life
(5) Uniform Series Present Worth Factor - used to convert annual
O&M cost to present worth. Example - factor @ 7-3/8%/20 years
is 10.292. Reference MCD-53.
(6) Capital Recovery Factor - used to convert present worth values
to average annual equivalent cost. Example - factor @
7-3/8%/20 years is 0.09716. Reference MCD-53.
39
-------
TABLE 6-l(a) (Cont'd)
(7) Cost Data Presentation Form
I - Construction Cost
Item
Land
Pipes
Structures -
buildings, tanks
Process Equip.
Auxiliary Equip.
Totals
Const
Cost
($)
Useful
Life
(years)
Permanent
50
30-50
10-20
10-15
Salvage
Value
($)
II - O&M Costs
Annual Cost
$/year
Present Net Present
Worth-SV Worth
($) ($)
Present
Worth
Item
Labor
Power
Materials
Administration
Totals
III - Average Annual Equivalent Costs
Construction Cost Net Present Worth
O&M Present Worth
Total Present Worth =
Total Net Present Worth X CRF =
Average Annual Equivalent Cost
-------
TABLE 6-l(b)
OXIDATION DITCH
EVALUATION FORMAT
A. Receiving Stream Controls:
(1) Base Flow (7/Q/10) Load Allocation - Wastewater Effluent
Characteristics
(a) BOD5 =
(b) BOD5 =
(c)
(d)
S.S.
S.S.
=
mg/1 @
mg/1 @
mg/1 (<>
mg/1 (a
mg/1 (a
mg/1 ?
as needed - NH3,
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
P, etc.
(e) D.O.
(f) D.O.
(g) Others
(2) Seasonal Sustained High^, Load Allocation - Wastewater
Effluent Characteristics
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(f)
(9)
(3) Stream Gauging Information Needed
BOD5 -
BODc -
S.S.
S.S
D.O.
D.O.
D.O.
Others
mg/1 @
mg/1 (3
mg/1 @
= mg/1 @
= mg/1 @
mg/1 (a
mg/1 (a
- as needed - NH3,
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q present)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
MGD (Q 20 yrs.)
P, etc.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Agency responsible - U.S.G.S., State, Other
Location of gauge (Map) .
Type of gauge .
Years of record .
Stage/Discharge Curves1 .
Flow Frequency Analysis^ .
B. Process/Operation Selection:
(1) Based upon waste load allocations at 7/Q/10 stream flow, can
the treatment facility satisfy the effluent requirement?
Yes or No
1 Based on site specific stage and frequency analysis; 94 percent yield
assurance targeted.
41
-------
TABLE 6-l(b) (Cont'd)
(2) Is a no discharge system feasible during periods when waste
load allocation exceeds treatment facility capacity?
Yes No (Present details)
(3) Is a no discharge system feasible? Yes No
present details.
(a) groundwater impacts
(b) evaporation/rainfall analysis
(c) allowable percolation rate used
(d) odors/nuisance controls
(e) land availability
(4) Based upon seasonal waste load allocations, define periods of
time when utilization of land application facilities is
required for maintenance of stream standards.
(5) Process controls used - state all criteria used and identify
combination uses (seasonal allocations)
(a) detailed flow sheet outlining system configuration and
combination of unit processes.
(b) preliminary facilities - define type, capacity (ADF and
Peak Flow), and number. Normally only barscreen with
possibility of inclusion of grit chamber dependent upon
Infiltration/Inflow condition.
(c) organic loading to oxidation ditch (Ibs. BOD5/day per
1000 cu.ft.) and total volume of oxidation ditch (gallons).
(d) minimum depth, designed free-board, and cross-sectional
shape.
(e) length/width ratio used for design.
(f) minimum design velocity under initial flows, design flows,
and peak flows.
(g) materials of construction utilized for oxidation ditch.
(h) type and capacity of aeration equipment utilized for oxygen
transfer (Ibs. of oxygen transfered/lb. 8005 applied).
(i) design criteria (average and peak flows) for final
sedimentation tank including surface overflow rate, weir
loading rate, sidewater depth, retention time, and solids
recirculation capability.
(j) return sludge pumping capacity (normally 100% of average
daily design flow.
(k) location of influent introduction to oxidation ditch,
effuent withdraw! from oxidation ditch, return sludge
introduction to oxidation ditch, and by-passing pipe
arrangement for partial treatment of flow with either
oxidation ditch or final clarifier out of service.
42
-------
TABLE 6-l(b) (Cont'd)
(1) disinfection facility retention time and chemical feed
rate/capacity (minutes at peak flow and Ibs./day chemical
(feed).
(m) sludge holding facilities for storage of waste solids when
drying and/or final disposal is not available (capacity and
design basis).
(n) sludge drying capability (area for drying beds and capacity
for mechanical equipment.
(o) ultimate disposal of waste solids consideration (volume
anticipated frequency, and location or method).
(p) ancillary facilities including raw waste pumping,
electrical systems, maintenance building, site work and
yard piping, access roads, fencing, alarm systems, and
miscellaneous items.
C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Present Worth and Average Annual
Equivalent Cost
(1) Discount Rate - presently set at 7-3/8 percent. Verify at
time of analysis
(2) Planning Period - 20 years
(3) Useful Life - See item 7 below
(4) Salvage Value - straight line depreciation, 20 yr./Useful Life
(5) Uniform Series Present Worth Factor - used to convert annual
O&M cost to present worth. Example - factor @ 7-3/8%/20 years
is 10.292. Reference MCD-53.
(6) Capital Recovery Factor - used to convert present worth values
to average annual equivalent cost. Example - factor @
7-3/8%/20 years is 0.09716. Reference MCD-53.
43
-------
TABLE 6-l(b) (Cont'd)
(7) Cost Data Presentation Form
I - Construction Cost
Item
Land
Pipes
Structures -
buildings, tanks
Process Equip.
Auxiliary Equip.
Totals
Const.
Cost
($)
Useful
Life
(years)
Permanent
50
30-50
15-20
15-15
Salvage Present
Value Worth-SV
($)
II - Q&M Costs
Annual Cost
$/year
($)
Net Present
Worth
($)
Present
Worth
Item
Labor
Power
Materials
Administration
Totals
III - Average Annual Equivalent Costs
Construction Cost Net Present Worth
O&M Present Worth
Total Present Worth -
Total Net Present Worth X CRF =
Average Annual Equivalent Cost
44
-------
TABLE 6-2(a)
CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE
STABILIZATION POND
Earthwork
Fencing
Seeding
Piping, valves & inter-
connecting struc.
Access Road & Site Work
Influent/Effluent Struc,
Flow Measurement
Other
Subtotal
A/E Fees: Step 2
Step 3
Legal & Admin.
Contingency
Subtotal
Land
Total
$_
$
INTERCEPTORS
Interceptor $
Lift Station $_
Force Main $
Subtotal $_
A/E Fees: Step 2 $_
Step 3 $_
Legal & Admin. $_
Contingency $_
Total $_
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Collection System $_
A/E Fees: Step 2 $_
Step 3 $_
Legal & Admin. $
Contingency $
Total $
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $
45
-------
TABLE 6-2(b)
CAPITAL COSTS ESTIMATE
OXIDATION DITCH
Raw Uaste Pumping $
Station
Preliminary Treatment $
Oxidation Ditch $
Final Clarifier $_
Disinfection Facilities $_
Return Sludge Facilities $_
Sludge Holding Facilities $_
Sludge Dewatering $_
Facilities
Ultimate Disposal Area $
Site Pumping and Valves $
Access Roads and Other $
Site Work
Operations/Maintenance $_
BuiIding
Instrumentation and $
Electrical
Other $
Subtotal
A/E Fees: Step 2
Step 3
Legal & Admin.
Contingency
Subtotal
Land
Total
$"
r
INTERCEPTORS
Interceptor $_
Lift Station $_
Force Main $
Subtotal $_
A/E Fees: Step 2 $_
Step 3 $_
Legal & Admin. $_
Contingency $_
Total $_
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Collection System $_
A/E Fees: Step 2 $_
Step 3 $_
Legal & Admin. $
Contingency
Total $
$
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $
46
-------
TABLE 6-3
CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS
EVALUATION FORMAT
A. Design Criteria:
(1) Base Conditions
(a) Average depth to rock feet.
(b) Average depth to groundwater feet.
(c) Topography - use U.S.G.S. quad sheets.
(d) Distance to existing system feet, use location
map(s).
(e) User density (present and projected) - Ref. Section 3.4
Future Situation, allocation of population, commercial
and industrial to each service zone in the service area.
(2) Equipment Selection
(a) Effluent pump design - normally considered much more
reliable than the grinder pump installation. Soils,
geology and groundwater elevations may make septic
tank installation impractical.
(b) Grinder pump design - provides greater internal plumbing
flexibility but is more prone to breakdown/stopage.
(c) Pressure mainfold versus gravity design - normally
pump discharge to a small diameter gravity system is
preferred from an energy and reliability viewpoint to a
pressure manifold system. Site and area conditions
will dictate best situation.
B. Design Analysis:
(1) For each Alternative Configuration provide -
(a) Layout of the system showing house service (effluent or
grinder) arrangement, size and routing of piping and
pump station location and capacity.
(b) Hydraulic analysis of each alternative considered.
(c) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis:
Same cost breakdown as shown in Table 5-2. Use realistic
useful lifes of equipment and realistic maintenance
requirements.
47
-------
Total Capital Cost
Funding Sources
Local Share!
Financing Cost^
Funding Sources
0 & M Cost
Typical User Rates^
TABLE 7-1
COST IMPACT ANALYSIS
$
Federal Grants:
EPA $_
FmHA $
EDA $"
Others $"
State Grants: $~
TOTAL $"
(a) $
(b) $"
(c) $_
(a)
(b)
$
$"
$:
Federal Loans $_
Revenue Bonds $_
Ad valorem $_
Taxes $_
Other $"
/yr.
(a)
(b)
(c)
$
$"
$"
^(a), (b), (c), etc. - Provide variable estimates based on a range from
no external assistance to maximum realistic funding available.
2(a), (b), (c), etc. - Variable, as needed to support a range of
funding possibilities. The cost reflected is the debt service charge
estimated under current market and/or outside assistance available.
3(a), (b), (c), etc. - Typical user rates (per household per month)
anticipated under varying financial support.
48
-------
TABLE 7-2 (a)
STABILIZATION POND DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter
Average daily flows, mgd _
Number of cells, in parallel or in series _
Detention Time, Days
Cell # 1
Cell # 2
Cell # 3
Depth, ft
Cell # 1
Cell #2
Cell # 3
BOD Loading Rate, LB/Acre/Day
Cell # 1
Cell #2
Cell # 3
Influent SS/BOD concentration, mg/1
Effluent SS/BOD concentration, mg/1
Surface area of ponds, acres
Cell # 1
Cell # 2
Cell # 3
Lining, if any (specify type)
Overflow structure, fixed or variable heights
49
-------
TABLE 7-2 (b)
OXIDATION DITCH DESIGN PARAMETERS
Average daily flows, mgd
Hydraulic retention time, hours
Minimum depth, ft
Liquid depth
Freeboard (allow for peak wet weather flows)
BOD Loading Rate, lb/day/1000 cu. ft.
Influent SS/BOD concentration, mg/1
Effluent SS/BOD concentration, mg/1
Minimum design velocity, fps
Initial Flow
Design FLow
Peak Flow
Total Volume of Oxidation Ditch, gallons
Cross-section area of channel
Cross-sectronal channel shape
Length/width ratio
Materials of construction
Type of aeration equipment
Capacity of aeration equipment,
Ibs of 0 transfered
Return sludge pumping capacity, mgd
Final clarifier overflow rate, gpd/sq. ft.
50
-------
TABLE 8-1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Work Element
Work Plan
Fact Sheet
Develop Mailing List
Distribute Work Plan
and Fact Sheet
Town Council Meeting
(Kick-off Session)
Remarks
Outline program activities and the schedule
of events during the planning process.
Describe how the community will be kept
informed of the facilities planning
program. Include the name and number of a
public participation contact person. One
Page.
Define the objectives of the facilities
planning and the scope, costs and results
required. - one page.
Seek a broad-base representation in
developing the mailing list.
In addition to the mailing list,
display this information in public
buildings, (e.g., Town Halls, Libraries,
etc.). Spot news releases in the local
newspapers and radio are encouraged.
Early in the planning process, a
public consultation must be held to inform
the public of proposed facilities planning
options and to identify potential community
issues that should be addressed. A town
council meeting can be used as a "kick-off"
session to discuss the need for a project,
existing problem areas, possible solutions
identified in the screening process, and the
proposed schedule for completing the plan.
The meeting must be documented with a brief
summary of the proceedings. Community
priorities and issues identified as a result
of that meeting should be incorporated in
this section of the facilities plan. The
proceedings should be documented with a
brief summary of meeting.
51
-------
Town Council Meeting
(General Findings)
Public Hearing
During the alternative analysis phase of
the facilities planning, public involvement
should be aimed at discussing the options
considered and establish the acceptability
of specific alternatives. A public meeting
is required at the completion of alternative
analysis. Discuss the basic findings of the
facilities plan without recommendations. A
responsiveness summary addressing issues
raised at the meeting must be provided
following the public meeting.
Based on the technical evaluation of
alternatives and public input obtained at
previous meetings and hearings, a
recommended plan must be selected and
presented to the community's elected
officials for formal adoption. If more than
one unit of local government is required to
implement the plan, each entity must approve
the plan through a formal resolution of
acceptance. A summary description of the
project, the projected schedule for
implementation and a listing of costs to
users must be distributed throughout the
community before the hearing. A record and
summary of the hearing is required.
52
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wastewater Treatment Ponds,
EPA-430/9-74-011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wastewater Treatment Ponds,
(MCD-14), EPA-430/9-74-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stabilization Ponds: Operations
Manual. (MO-15), EPA-430/9-77-012
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual, (MCD-53"J1 EPA-430/9-78-009 (February 1980)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Comparison of Oxidation Ditch
Plants to Competing Processes for Secondary and Advanced Treatment of
Municipal Wastes, Environmental Protection Technology Series,
EPA-600/2-78-051 (March 1978)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Upgrading Lagoons,
EPA-625/4-73-001a (August 1973), Technology Transfer Seminar Publication
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lagoon Performance and the State of
Lagoon Tecnology, EPA-R2-73-144 (June 1973)
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment,
Disposal, McGraw-Hill.
53
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981 — 777-000/1102 Region No 8
------- |