Construction Grants Program News
Fall 1975
A Message from Russell E. Train
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 set in motion a comprehensive program to clean up the
Nation's waters. Since the law was enacted, much progress has
been made toward cleaner water, thanks to the cooperative efforts
of Federal, State and local governments, of industries, and of
concerned citizens. But much remains to be done.
One of our country's major environmental problems is municipal
sewage. It is estimated that raw or inadequately treated sewage
from 107 million people still flows into our waterways. And
out of a population of approximately 210 million, only 53
million people are served by systems that provide secondary
treatment or better.
To safeguard public health and welfare, we must do an
increasingly better job of controlling pollution from municipal
sewage, as well as other sources. We can no longer afford to
allow the free use of our waterways as a dumping ground for
our wastes. Even as industry and agriculture can no longer
dispose of their water wastes in the old way, neither can towns
and cities expect to dispose of sewage as they have in the past.
Recognizing that many local governments could not afford to
build needed treatment facilities without financial assistance,
Congress dramatically increased Federal aid to help local
governments meet the requirements of the 1972 Act. The 1972
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments made available
$18 billion in Federal construction grants to local governments
for sewage treatment. As of August 31, 1975, $7.1 billion has
been obligated. EPA intends to obligate the remaining $10.9
billion by September 30, 1977.
If your community has a water pollution problem and if
it has not yet gotten involved in the construction grant program
to help remedy that problem, I urge it to do so. The result
will be cleaner, safer, and healthful water for all to enjoy.
With this first issue of Clean Water, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency begins a new effort to help local governments
and others interested in municipal wastewater treatment keep
abreast of latest developments in the construction grant program.
We hope you will find this newsletter informative and helpful.
Announcement, Pledge,
and Appeal
By John T. Rhett
As the national program manager
of the construction grant program ad-
ministered by EPA, I want to launch
this first issue of our Clean Water
newsletter with an announcement, a
pledge, and an appeal.
First the announcement. We have
the money to give away. To be specific,
we have $10.9 billion to give to local
governments between September 1,
1975 and September 30, 1977, to help
them build sewage treatment facilities.
Now the pledge. We at EPA are
determined to obligate that money to
local governments as expeditiously as
possible. That jneans we are de-
termined to cut red tape and to speed
up our review and approval of grant
applications. To that end, we recently
boosted our program manpower sub-
stantially and made several improve-
ments in program administration.
Now the appeal. To expedite the
construction grant program, we at
EPA need the help of local and State
governments, and of the architects,
engineers and contractors who design
and build treatment projects. For no
matter how well we at EPA streamline
our operation and no matter how many
Continued on next page
Boxscore Under PL 92-500
Construction grant funds
allotted: $18 Billion
Already obligated: $ 7.1 Billion
Funds available: $10.9 Billion
(as of August 31, 1975)
-------
Announcement.
people we assign to the grant program,
the hard fact is this: We cannot ap-
prove inadequate or incomplete grant
applications. The requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and of State law must be met.
State and EPA personnel can help
local governments and their consult-
ants. But how well the local govern-
ment completes its grant application
and takes other necessary actions be-
fore and during the grant process will
largely determine if we can make the
grant and how fast we can do so.
This newsletter is not the forum for
a listing of Federal requirements. But
I do want to provide some guidance
based on past experience in processing
grant applications.
• We cannot approve a grant unless
the applicant demonstrates that the
project is environmentally, socially and
institutionally acceptable. That means
that environmental considerations must
be part of the project from its concep-
tion and that the environmental assess-
ment must be used as a basic decision-
making tool before, not after, a choice
is made. And that also-means that the
public must be involved in the formula-
tion of the proposed project and then
in implementation of the project. En-
vironmental and social impacts of pro-
posed projects must be properly con-
sidered.
Clean Water
Fall 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Harold K Cahill, Editor
Director, Muncipal Construction
Division
Published quarterly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Russell E. Train
Administrator
Dr. Andrew W. Breidenbach
Acting Assistant Administrator for
Water & Hazardous Materials
John T. Rhett
National Construction Grant Program
Manager and Deputy Assistant Ad-
ministrator, Water Program Opera-
tions
Send editorial inquiries to CLEAN
WATER, (A-107) 305B, WT, EPA,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Send subscription requests, changes
of address, to CLEAN WATER,
EPA, c/o GSA, Building 41, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, Colorado
80225.
EPA's construction grants program is assisting communities throughout the country U
build wastewater treatment plants for cleaner water. The city of Fairbanks, Alaska am
EPA Region X are working together to build a wastewater treatment facility. Above
construction workers place concrete for the facility's effluent pump station. In the back
ground, are the sludge thickener and the influent lift station. Below, Blue Plains wil
provide advanced wastewater treatment to serve the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area
In the foreground, the plant's new aeration tanks are seen under construction.
• We can only approve a grant if the
applicant demonstrates that the sec-
ondary and indirect impacts of the
project have been fully considered and
evaluated. This is closely related to the
environmental assessment.
• We can only approve a grant if the
applicant demonstrates that alterna-
tives to the proposed project have been
fully considered and evaluated.
• We can only approve a grant if the
applicant demonstrates that the pro-
posed project is cost-effective. In other
words, will the proposed project pro-
vide the necessary water cleanup at the
lowest possible price, considering all
factors and in comparison with alterna-
tive approaches?
• We can only approve a grant if the
applicant demonstrates that proper
provisions have been made to assure
fiscal integrity. In other words, what
steps will be taken to prevent fraud and
other irregularities?
• We can only approve a grant if the
applicant demonstrates that sludge will
be disposed of properly.
• We can only approve a grant if the
applicant demonstrates that all users of
the proposed project will pay their
proper and proportional share of the
cost. In other words, has a user charge
system been devised?
• We can only approve a grant if the
-------
applicant demonstrates that the pro-
posed project will be operated and
maintained effectively. In other words,
what provisions have been made to
recruit and train operators and to as-
sure continuing proper operation of the
plant?
Delays in meeting the requirements
cited above have retarded the process-
ing of too many construction grant
applications. This has affected the con-
struction of needed treatment plants,
and as a result, the attainment of
cleaner water.
And let us not forget that cleaner
water is the name of the game. As
Congress said in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the objective of
the law is "to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological in-
tegrity of the nation's waters."
We at EPA stand ready to help
local governments do their share to
meet that objective by constructing
efficient and environmentally-sound
treatment facilities. Of the $18 billion
provided by Congress for grants, we
have $10.9 billion remaining to award
for municipal treatment facilities.
Congress provided those funds to
help local governments meet their ob-
ligations under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act—first, to meet
the secondary treatment requirement,
and then to meet the requirement for
more advanced treatment of municipal
wastewater.
We can help local governments
comply with those requirements. But
to do so, we need your help. I there-
fore appeal to all local government
officials to help us help you obtain
your community's fair share of the
$10.9 billion. You can do so by paying
particular attention to the issues listed
above when your community makes
plans to apply for a 75 percent Federal
grant for sewage treatment facilities.
Finally, I want to close with an
invitation. Through this newsletter, we
intend to try to keep you up to date on
the program, to let you know what we
are doing, to discuss progress, and to
discuss problems. But we also want to
hear from you, the readers. We invite
you—indeed, urge you—to send us
your comments on what you read in
the newsletter, on what you think
should be in the newsletter, and on any
and all aspects of the construction
grant program. We cannot promise to
print your letters. But we do promise
to read them and to give them our full
consideration.
The 1972 Law and Municipal Polluters
The 1972 amendments to the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act did
much more than provide $18 billion
for grants to communities to build
sewage treatment facilities. Those
amendments also set in motion a com-
prehensive program to prevent, reduce
and eliminate water pollution.
The law proclaimed two general
goals:
First, wherever possible by July 1,
1983, water that is clean enough for
swimming and other recreational uses,
and clean enough for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
Second, no discharges of pollutants
into the Nation's waters by 1985.
To move toward achievement of
those national goals, the law set out a
series of actions that must be taken by
Federal, State and local governments,
and by industries. The law also estab-
lished a system of national effluent
limitations for both municipal and in-
dustrial polluters. (An effluent limita-
tion is simply the maximum amount of
a pollutant that may be discharged into
a water body in a specified time pe-
riod.) The law established new plan-
ning requirements for State and local
governments. It also established a new
permit system for discharges into the
Nation's waters, replacing the 1899
Refuse Act permit system that had
applied only to industrial dischargers.
Under the new permit system, no
discharge of any pollutant from any
point source is allowed without a per-
mit from EPA or from a Stale with an
EPA-approved permit program. Pub-
licly-owned sewage treatment plants
and municipally-controlled discharge
points—as well as industrial discharg-
ers—must obtain permits. If a polluter
cannot meet the permit requirements
immediately, a compliance schedule
sets out a timetable for taking specific
steps toward compliance. (As of June
30, 1975, 16,664 permits had been
issued to municipalities.)
What does all this—planning, ef-
fluent limits, permits—mean to local
governments? It means this:
• All publicly-owned sewage treat-
ment plants in operation on July 1,
1977—whether or not built with the
aid of a Federal grant, and no matter
when built—must provide a minimum
of secondary treatment. (Secondary
tieatment generally removes 85 per-
cent of suspended solids and organic
matter that deplete the oxygen content
of water.) There's one exception to
this requirement: A treatment plant
being built with the help of a Federal
grant that was approved before June
30, 1974 must provide secondary treat-
ment within four years, but no later
than June 30, 1978.
• Also by July 1, 1977, all sewage
treatment plants must apply whatever
additional or more stringent limits of
discharges EPA or a State may estab-
lish to meet water quality standards,
treatment standards, or compliance
schedules.
• All publicly-owned waste treatment
plants—whether or not built with the
aid of a Federal grant, and no matter
when built—must use "best practic-
able" treatment by July 1, 1983.
("Best practicable" treatment means
more than secondary treatment; it may
involve additional chemical or biologi-
cal treatment of the effluent from a
secondary treatment plant, or land dis-
posal of the effluent to achieve further
purification.)
• Areawide waste treatment manage-
ment plans must be established by July
1976 in urban industrial areas that
have substantial water pollution prob-
lems.
• In order to be eligible for a Federal
construction grant, alter July 1976 a
waste treatment plant in one of those
urban industrial areas must be part
of, and in conformity with, the area-
wide plan, if one exists.
• Dumping sludge from sewage treat-
ment plants directly into water bodies
or on land where it may affect water
quality is prohibited except under a
permit issued by EPA or a State with
an EPA-approved permit program.
These actions are strong but neces-
sary if we are to eliminate a major
national problem, water pollution.
-------
The Construction Grants Program:
Some History, Some Statistics
The period following World War II
brought rapid population growth and
development of urban and suburban
areas in the United States. It also
brought increasing water pollution. It
soon became evident that most com-
munities could not afford to build sew-
age treatment facilities fast enough to
keep pace with the increasing volume
of wastes. Out of this evolved a Fed-
eral program to help communities plan
and build treatment systems:
1948—Congress authorized appro-
priated loans for river basin studies
and municipal facilities planning.
1956—Congress authorized $50 mil-
lion a year in construction grants, with
the Federal share set at a maximum of
30 percent and up to $250,000 per
grant.
1966—Congress raised the Federal
share to a maximum of 55 percent and
removed the dollar ceiling on grants,
thereby opening the program to cities
of all sizes. Appropriations for grant
funds rose steadily in the late 1960's,
authorized to reimburse State and local
governments for projects started during
the 1966-72 period when adequate
Federal funding was not available.
That, in brief, is the history of the
evolution of the grant program. Now
some statistics:
• Between 1956 and enactment of the
1972 law, almost 14,000 sewage treat-
ment projects were awarded $5.2 bil-
lion in Federal grants for facilities cost-
ing about $14 billion.
• As of June 30, 1975, $13.4 billion
in Federal grants had been obligated to
publicly-owned treatment projects. Of
that total, $6 billion has already been
paid out. The remainder will be paid
as the projects progress. (See Table
1.)
• As of June 30, 1975, $1.9 billion
had been appropriated and obligated
to reimburse State and local govern-
ments for projects started in the 1966-
72 period.
• Of the $18 billion authorized for
grants in 1972, $6.6 billion—or 37
percent—had been obligated as of June
Table 1
CONSTRUCTION GRANT OBLIGATIONS & EXPENDITURES
($ in Millions)
Fiscal
Year
57-66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76 As
Net Obligations Net Obligations
Yearly
$131.1
191.1
200.7
424.5
1151.6
859.8
2988.6
2633.3
4133.2
of 7-31-75 216.9
1 Includes $1735.4 obligated
'Includes $1096.1 expended
Cumulative
$668.5
799.6
990.7
1191.4
1616.9
2767.5
3627.3
6615.9
9249.2
13382.4
13599.3
under PL 93-207
under PL 93-207
Expenditures
Yearly
$84.5
122.1
134.5
176.4
478.4
413.4
684.4
1552.5
1938.9
Not available
Expenditures
Cumulative
$450.0
534.5
656.6
791.1
967.5
1445.9
1859.3
2543.7
4096.2
6035.1 =
Not available
Table 2
Status of Construction Grant Funds
As of July 31, 1975
FY 1975 FUNDS
Region
State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CT
MA
ME
NH
RI
VT
NJ
NY
PR
VI
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
sc
TN
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
\VI
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
IA
KS
MO
NB
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
AZ
CA
GU
HI
NV
PI
SA
AK
ID
OR
WA
Allotments
69,542,900
90,215,900
26,227,000
35,072,950
20,864,000
11,800,800
254,656,200
490,654,200
40,832,900
3,130,900
38,233,800
21,815,300
54,128,100
222,744,100
98,672,400
37,735,700
33,785,150
164,496,400
76,153,000
65,183,600
22,346,700
70,494,200
55,922,000
48,371,800
252,311,700
63,678,100
188,637,400
64,247,300
193,378,700
52,360,400
23,860,100
35,551,850
10,670,500
46,997,400
106,900,250
39,364.800
40,192,500
74,546,400
20,894,000
30,930,900
7,534,600
6,876,100
7,308,800
16,579,600
4,049,450
17,695,750
457,420,100
2,172,000
41,140,000
18,695-COO
524,300
576,700
15,059,100
7,898,400
34,136,700
64,730,500
TOTAL 4,000,000,000
Unobligated Obligations Unobligi
Beginning Month Balai
of Month to Date
48,205,456
52,015,274
7,531,560
12,092,838
13,192,425
8,944,314
139,926,684
361,509,013
35,528,107
2,721,650
8,467,920
22.612,635
165,606,570
25.373,357
29,886,560
15,581,527
76,505,797
66,413,172
38,429,848
14,022,190
59,549,914
53,200,478
31,481,389
148,295.433
59,734,508
99,867,289
5,948,212
168,151,733
37,558,455
17,918,320
33,200,869
9,964,236
39,482,073
57,962,997
26,676,165
32,521,338
46,285,977
6,471,016
9,868,546
1,327.610
1,631,958
5,345,565
2,320,150
1,212,646
354,730,582
57,248,652
300
576,700
502,543
10,485,630
10,902,727
2,494,990,908
930,845
124,682
28,170,770
2,654,378
511,688
678,220
307,915
2,478,801
109,624
142,725
217,369
70,350
408,450
14,626,050
3,375
18,825
14,878,725
187,875
9,250.724
5.524,153
2,722,605
477,707
24,716,642
(—782,283)
418,900
4,965,967
39,220
1,327,610
(—103,436)
13,050
1,948,050
15,825
54,325,430
(—26,575)
(—84,018)
(—118,909)
103,082
171,254,411
48,205,
51,084,
7,531,
12,092,
13,192,
8,819,
111,755,
358,854,
35,016,
2,721,
8,467,'
22,612,i
165,606,
24,695,
29,886,:
15,273,'
76,505,"
63,934,:
38,429,!
13,912,!
59,407,
52,983,:
31,411,(
U7,886,S
45,108,'
99,863,'
5,929,:
153,273,C
37,370,5
8,667,5
27,676,7
7,241,6
39,C04,3
33,24(5.3
27,458,4
32,102,4
41,320,0
6,43 1,V
9,868,5
1,735,3
5,332,5
372,1
1,196,8
300,405,1
17,248,«
3
576,7
26,5
586.5
10,604,5
10,799,6
2,323,736,4
reaching $1 billion in fiscal year 1971.
1972—Congress authorized $18 bil-
lion for grants for municipal treatment
facilities. The Federal share was in-
creased to 75 percent of the cost of the
project. An additional $2.6 billion was
30, 1975. (Sec Table 2.) $1.6 billion
was obligated in fiscal year 1973, $1.4
billion in fiscal 1974, and $3.6 billion
in fiscal 1975.
• An estimated $5.2 billion will be
obligated in fiscal 1976 (July 1, 1975-
June 30, 1976).
• An estimated $6.2 billion will be
obligated in fiscal 1977 (July 1, 1976-
September 30, 1977).
• More than 5,300 municipal treat-
ment projects are underway. When
-------
Some Questions and Answers, and The Grant Process in Outline
Who is eligible for a Federal con-
struction grant?
Municipalities, intermunicipal agen-
cies, States, or interstate agencies.
The law defines a municipality as
"a city, town, borough, county, parish,
district, or other public body created
by or pursuant to State law and hav-
ing jurisdiction over disposal of sew-
age, industrial wastes, or other wastes,
and an Indian tribe or an authorized
Indian tribal organization." An ap-
proved areawide planning agency may
also receive a grant.
What will the construction grant pay
for?
A grant will pay 75 percent of the
total cost of the project, including:
preliminary planning, studies, and
other early preparatory work; design
plans and specifications; construction
of the treatment facilities.
Projects eligible for grants are: new
tieatment plants; expansion or im-
provement of existing plants; inter-
ceptor and outfall sewer lines; pump-
ing, power and other equipment needed
to operate the system. Under certain
conditions, grants may also be made
for sewage collection systems and
projects to control pollution from com-
bined sewers (storm and sanitary), and
for land application of wastewater.
What does a local government do
first to get a grant?
The first thing a local government
has to do is get its proposed project on
the ''priorily list" prepared by the
State, which is responsible for planning
a statewide approach to water pollution
control and which ranks projects in
order of their importance ana submits
the list to EPA for approval. Factors
considered in determining a project's
priority include population affected,
sevcritv of the pollution problem, need
to preserve high-quality water, nation-
al priorities, and the availability of
funds, including the 25 percent non-
Federal share.
When is the Federal grant paid if
the project is approved?
Federal payments are made to the
local government as all or parts of
three distinct steps arc completed. Step
1 is Ihe planning phase. This includes
preliminary studies and other prep-
aratory work. Step 2 is the design
phase, in which detailed plans and
specifications are prepared. Step 3 is
the construction phase.
How long does the process take?
That depends on many things, in-
cluding the completeness of a grant
application and how thoroughly the
applicant has met grant requirements.
In many cases, the preconstruction
period—from the time of conception
of the project to the beginning of con-
struction—has been taking from l-2Va
years. EPA's goal is to cut that to 9-18
months. Actual construction of the
project may take 1-5 years, depending
on the nature of the project.
What's involved in a municipal
waste treatment project under the grant
program?
A great deal. Consider some stages
in a typical project:
Preapplication Stage
1. Need for project determined;
State places project on priority list.
2. Applicant (city, county, town,
etc.) selects consultant. (Some cities
do in-house planning and design, with-
out a consultant.)
3. Applicant and consultant have
preapplication conference with State
and EPA.
4, Applicant and consultant con-
sider alternatives, environmental and
other impacts. Applicant seeks public
involvement and may hold public
meeting or hearing. Applicant makes
decision.
Facilities Planning Stage
5. Application for Step 1 grant sub-
mitted to State and EPA for review and
approval.
6. Consultant prepares facilities plan.
7. EPA and State review and ap-
prove facilities plan.
8. EPA prepares environmental im-
pact statement if necessary, or an-
nounces none is needed. Public hear-
ing may be held.
Design Stage
9. Consultant prepares materials
for Step 2 grant agreement, submits it
to State and EPA for review and
approval.
10. Consultant prepares plans and
specifications.
11. EPA and State review and ap-
prove project plans and specifications.
Construction Stage
12. Consultant prepares material
for Step 3 grant, submits it to State
and EPA for approval.
13. Grantee advertises for construc-
tion bids, selects responsive low bid-
der, submits all bids to State and EPA
for approval, and upon approval
grantee awards contract.
14. Project is constructed.
15. EPA and State conduct final
inspection.
16. EPA conducts final audit and
makes final payment.
Operation and Maintenance Stage
17. Plant operated and maintained
for life of project.
18. State and EPA conduct opera-
tion and maintenance, permit com-
pliance inspections.
19. Municipality collects user
charges industrial cost recovery pay-
ments.
That, in outline, is how the process
unfolds.
completed, total cost of those projects • Some 1,600 projects funded under funds and $6 billion in State and local
will be about $15 billion in Federal the 1972 law arc in the first stage of funds.
and non-Federal funds. About 90 per- planning. • Grand total, old and current con-
cent of the project? funded under the • Total investment in municipal treat- struction grant program: $39 billion in
pre-1972 program arc well along in ment projects under the 1972 law will Federal, State and local funds invested
construction.
be $24 billion, $18 billion in Federal in cleaner water.
-------
Need Help?
For guidance, assistance and details on how to
apply for a construction grant, local governments
are urged to contact grant program specialists in
EPA regional offices and State water polluti
control agencies. Addresses and telephone nu
bers follow.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region, Administrator & Address
I John A. S. McGlennon
Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617 223-7210
(Maine, N.H., Vt., Mass., R.I.,
Conn.)
II Gerald M. Hansler
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1009
New York, New York 10007
212 264-2525
(N.Y., N.J., P.R., V.I.)
Ill Daniel J. Snyder III
Environmental Protection Agency
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215 597-9814
(Pa., W.Va., Md., Del., D.C.,
Va.)
IV Jack E. Ravan
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
404 526-5727
(N.C., S.C., Ky., Tenn., Ga.,
Ala., Miss., Fla.)
V Francis T. Mayo
Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312 353-5250
(Mich., Wis., Minn..' 111., Ind.,
Ohio)
VI John C. While
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
214 749-1962
(Texas, Okla., Ark., La., N. Mex.)
VII Jerome H. Svore
Environmental Protection Agency
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
816 374-5493
(Kansas, Nebr., Iowa, Mo.)
VIII John A. Green
Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 900
Denver, Colorado 80203
303 837-3895
(Colo., Mont., Wyo., Utah, N.D.,
S.D.)
IX Paul DeFalco Jr.
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
415 556-2320
(Calif., Ariz., Nev., Hawaii)
X Clifford V. Smith
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
206 442-1220
(Wash., Ore., Idaho, Alaska)
State Water
REGION I
CT
Robert B. Taylor, Director
Wate'i Compliance & Hazardous
Substances
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue, Room 129
Hartford, CT 06115
PHONE: 203-566-3245
ME
George C. Gormley, Director
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State House
Augusta, ME 04330
PHONE: 207-289-2591
MA
Thomas C. McMahon, Director
Div. of Water Pollution Control
Dept. of Natural Resources
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
PHONE: 617-727-3855
NH
William A. Healy, Exec. Director
NH Water Suppy & Pollution
Control Commission
105 Loudon Road, P. O. Box 95
i Concord, NH 03301
PHONE: 603-271-3503
RI
Carleton A. Maine, Chief
Div. of Water Supply &
Pollution Control
RI Water Pollution Control
Health Bldg., Davis Street
Providence, RI 02908
PHONE. 401-277-2234
VT
Gordon R. Pyper, P.E.,
Commissioner
Agency of Environmental
Conservation
Department of Water Resources
Montpelier, VT 05602
PHONE: 802-828-3357
REGION II
NJ
Rocco D. Ricci, Acting Director
Division of Water Resources
Dept. of Environmental Protection
1474 Prospect St., P.O. Box 2809
Trenton, NJ 08625
PHONE: 609-292-1637
NY
Eugene Seebald, Director
Division of Pure Waters
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
PHONE: 518-457-6674
PR
Lorenzo Iglesias, Assoc. Director
Air and Water
Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
PHONE: 809-725-8692
VI
Pedrito Francois, -Director
Div. of Natural Resources
Management
Dept. of Conservation & Cultural
Affairs
P.O. Box 578
St. Thomas, VI 00801
PHONE: 809-774-3411
REGION III
DE
N. C. Vasuki, Director
Div. of Environmental Control
Dept. of Natural Resurces &
Environmental Control
Tatnall Building
Dover, DE 19901
PHONE: 302-678-4765
DC
John Brink, Chief
Bureau of Air, Water & Noise
Dept. of Environmental Services
Environmental Health Admin.
25 K St., N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
PHONE: 202-629-3748
MD
Howard Chaney, Director
Environmental Health Admin.
610 N. Howard St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
PHONE: 301-383-2740
PA
Walter A. Lyon
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
Dept. of Environmental Resources
Harrisburg, PA 17120
PHONE: 717-787-2666
VA
Eugene T. Jensen, Executive
Secretary
jState Water Control Board
Commonweath of Virginia
2111 N. Hamilton Street
Richmond, VA 23230
PHONE: 804-770-1411
WV
John Hall, Actg. Chief
Div. of Water Resources
Dept. of Natural Resources
1201 Grcenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
PHONE: 304-345-2107
REGION IV
AL
James W. Warr
Chief Administrative Officer
AL Water Improvement
Commission
State Office Buiding
Montgomery, AL 36104
PHONE: 205-832-3370
FL
John A. Redmond, Director
Div. of Planning, Technical
Assistance & Grants
FL Dept. of Pollution Control
2562 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, FL 32301
PHONE: 904-488-4807
GA
Gene B. Welsh, Chief
Water Protection Branch
Environmental Protection
Dept. of Natural Resouro
270 Washington Street, S.I
Room 822
Atlanta, GA 30334
PHONE: 404-656-6953
KY
Harold T. Snodgrass, Dir(
Division of Water Quality
Dept. for Natural Resourc
Enviionrnental Protectior
Capital Plaza Towers
Frankfort, KY 40601
PHONE: 502-564-3410
MS
Ralph Waters, Chief
Water Quality Managemer
MS Air & Water Pollution
Contiol Commission
P. O. Box 827
Jackson, MS 39205
PHONE: 601-354-7661
NC
Darwin L. Coburn, Chief
Water Quality Section
Div. of Environmental Mgn
NC Dept. of Natural and I
Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
PHONE: 919-829-4740
SC
John E. Jenkins, P.E.
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality Con
SC Dept. of Health &
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
PHONE. 803-758-5631
IN
S. Leary Jones, Director
Div. of Water Quaity Cont
Bureau of Environmental I
Tenn. Dept. of Public Heal
621 Cordell Hull Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37219
PHONE: 615-741-2275
REGION V
IL
Michael Mauzy, Manager
Water Pollution Control Di
IL Environmental Protectio
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
PHONE: 217-782-2027
IN
Oral Hert, Technical Secret
Stream Pollution Control BI
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
PHONE: 317-633-5467
MI
Ralph W Purdy, Exec. Sec
Water Resources Commissi
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, MI 48926
PHONE: 517-373-2682
-------
Control Agencies
Barry Schade, Actg. Director
Div. of Water Pollution Control
MN Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
PHONE: 612-296-7354
Lee Carryer
OH Environmental Protection
Agency
P.O Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
PHONE: 614-466-6686
Thomas Frangos
Acting Asst. Sec. for
Envnonmental Protection
Dept. of Natural Resources
Madison, WI 53701
PHONE: 608-266-2747
GION VI
S Ladd Davies
Dept. of Pollution Control
& Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
PHONE: 501-371-1701
Robert Lafleur, Exec. Sec.
Stream Control Commission
P.O. Drawer FC
University Station
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
PHONE: 504-389-5309
John Wright, Chief
Water Quality Division
Environmental Improvement Agency
P.O. Box 2348
Santa Fe, NM 87501
PHONE: 505-827-2373
Lloyd F Pummill, Dep. Comm.
for Environmental Health
Dept. of Health
N.E. 10th & Stonewall
Oklahoma City, OK 73117
PHONE: 405-271-5600
Hugh Yantis, Exec. Director
Water Quality Board
P.O. Box 13246
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
PHONE: 512-475-2651
;GION VH
Joseph E. Obr, Director
Water Quality Management Div.
Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 3326
3920 Delaware
Des Momes, IA 50316
PHONE: 515-265-8134
N. Jack Burris, Chief
Water Quality Program
Div. of Environment
Dept of Health & Environment
Forbes Air Force Base, Bldg. 740
Topeka, KS 66620
PHONE: 913-296-3825
MO
Jack K. Smith, Director
Water Quality Program
Div. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, MO 65101
PHONE: 314-751-3241
NB
Dennis Lessig, Chief
Water Pollution Control
Dept. of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94653, State House Sta.
Lincoln, NB 68509
PHONE: 402-471-2186
REGION VIII
CO
Frank J. Rozich, Director
Water Quality Control Div.
Department of Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
PHONE: 303-338-6111 X231
MT
Donald G. Willems, Chief
Water Quality Buieau
Dept. of Health & Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59601
PHONE: 406-449-2406
ND
Norman L. Peterson, Director
Div. of Water Supply & Pollution
Control
Dept. of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, ND 58501
PHONE: 701-224-2386
SD
Blainc B. Barker, Chief
Water Quality Control Program
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State Office Building #2
Pierre, SD 57501
PHONE: 605-224-3351
UT
Calvin Sudweeks, Chief
Water Quality Section
Bureau of Environmental Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84113
PHONE: 801-328-6146
WY
Arthur Williamson. Administrator
Water Quality Div.
Dept. of Environmental Quality
State Office Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
PHONE: 307-777-7781
REGION IX
AZ
Robert H. Follett, Chief
Div. of Water Quaity Control
Health Building
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
PHONE: 602-271-4656
CA
Bill B. Dendy, Executive Officer
Water Resources Control Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
PHONE: 916-445-3085
GU
O. V. Natarajan
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Government of Guam
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, GU 96910
PHONE: 749-9903
HI
Dr. James Kumagi, Dep. Director
for Environmental Health
HI Dept. of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
PHONE: 808-548-4139
NV
Ernest Gregory, Chief
Bureau of Environmental Health
Division of Health
1209 Johnson Street
Carson City, NV 89701
PHONE: 702-885-4670
AMERICAN SAMOA
Donald Graf
Environmental Quality Commission
Government of American Samoa
Office of the Governor
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96920
TRUST TERRITORY OF THE
PACIFIC ISLANDS
Nacha Siren, Director
Div. of Environmental Health
Dept. of Health Services
TT of the Pacific Islands
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
REGION X
AK
Jon Scribner
Div. of Air & Quality Control
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Pouch O
Juneau, AK 99801
PHONE: 907-586-5371
ID
Dr. Lee Stokes, Administrator
Environmental Services Division
Dept. of Health & Welfare
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
PHONE: 208-384-2390
OR
Harold Sawyer, Administrator
Water Quality Division
Dept. of Environmental Quality
1234 S W. Morrison Street
Portland, OR 97205
PHONE: 503-229-5278
WA
John F. Spencer, Supervisor
Water Quality Management Section
Dept. of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504
PHONE: 206-753-3893
What Is
''Cost-Effectiveness'?
When EPA reviews a construction
grant application, one of the most im-
portant elements considered is the
"cost-effectiveness" of the proposed
project.
A "cost-effective" project, in brief,
is one that will achieve the needed
degree of water pollution control at
the least cost in money, in environ-
mental impact, and in other non-
monetary costs. Whether the goal is
secondary treatment to meet the
effluent standard, or more stringent
controls to meet higher water quality
standards, the applicant should con-
sider alternative approaches and costs.
For secondary treament, for ex-
ample, an applicant should evaluate
ways to combine waste treatment sys-
tems to realize economies of scale, to
reuse or sell wastewater to reduce
operating expenses, to reduce total
waste flow (including correcting ex-
cess infiltration) instead of increasing
plant capacity, and to improve opera-
tions and maintenance instead of ex-
panding facilities.
If it's necessary to go beyond sec-
ondary treatment to meet water qual-
ity standards, cost-effectiveness means
that the applicant should evaluate all
available advanced treatment tech-
nologies and land application.
Cost-effectiveness also applies to
sludge handling. Should the sludge be
disposed of, or recycled as soil con-
ditioner and fertilizer? The economic
and environmental costs and benefits
of all alternatives have to be evalu-
ated.
Plant size is another factor. Flow
rates and growth projections should
be carefully checkrd. Still another
consideration is phased construction:
Should the project be built in steps,
over various time periods, or is it
more cost-effective to construct the
entire project initially?
Those are some of the factors in-
volved in determining cost-effective-
ness. For further information, see the
EPA's new "Guide to the Selection of
Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems," published July 1975; also
EPA's "Costs of Wastewater Treat-
ment by Land Application," issued
June 1975.
-------
Changes in Grant Program Debated at Public Hearings
What changes, if any, are needed in
the construction grant program? To get
the views of concerned groups and
individuals on possible amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act affecting the construction grants
program, EPA held public hearings in
June in Atlanta, Kansas City, San
Francisco, and Washington, D.C.
The hearings focused on five major
issues that have surfaced since the Act
was last amended in 1972:
1. Should the Federal share of con-
struction grants be reduced from the
present 75 percent to 55 percent?
2. Should the Federal government
limit the amount of reserve capacity—
the growth-inducing potential, in es-
sence—of facilities eligible for con-
struction grants?
3. Should the types of projects
eligible for construction grants be re-
stricted?
4. Should the 1977 deadline for
secondary treatment by municipalities
be extended and by how long?
5. Should a greater portion of the
management of the construction grant
program be delegated to the States?
The following is a summary of the
issues and the comments of those who
participated in the public hearings:
Issue 1: A Lower Federal Share?
The 1972 amendments authorized
$18 billion in 75 percent construction
grants. But a survey of the States indi-
cated that $350 billion is needed to
meet the cost of eligible facilities as
defined in the Act—or $262.5 billion
in 75 percent grants.
Environmental Protection Agency
Deputy Administrator John R.
Quarles, Jr., stated at the hearings:
"The magnitude of the indicated need
is well beyond the capability of the
Federal budget to fund with 75 per-
cent grants in any reasonable future
time."
Reducing the Federal grant to 55
percent, Quarles said, would "permit
the limited funding available to go
fun'.cr in assisting needed projects"
and would "encourage greater account-
ability for cost-effective design and
project management on the part of the
grantee by virtue of the grantee's
greater investment in the project."
State and local government wit-
nesses at the hearings opposed reduc-
ing the Federal share. They maintained
that such a cut would be a retreat by
the Federal government from its com-
mitment to water pollution control.
According to'these witnesses State and
local governments cannot afford to
fund a greater share of treatment fa-
cilities. They maintained that reducing
the share would have no impact on cost
effectiveness. They said construction
needs are high because of high Fed-
eral requirements; therefore the Fed-
eral commitment must be high. And
they noted that stability is needed in
the program and that a cut in the
Federal share would produce in-
stability.
Industry and professional witnesses
also opposed reducing the Federal
share, for similar reasons. They em-
phasized the economic benefits of the
program, such as more jobs, and said
the program would slow down if the
Federal share is reduced.
Environmental organization wit-
nesses expressed a wide range of Views,
from opposing any reduction to accept-
ing a somewhat lower Federal share.
Issue 2: Limit Reserve Capacity?
Quarles noted that limiting reserve
capacity could "permit limited Federal
funds to go further in funding the back-
log of projects for treating existing
flows" and could result in "more care-
ful sizing and design of capacity so
that excessive growth-related reserve
capacity is not financed with Federal
funds."
State and local government wit-
nesses urged that the program be kept
as is. They supported case by case cost-
effective analysis to determine reserve
capacity. They said a change would
put too much of burden on local gov-
ernments, would be administratively
complex, and would work against cost-
effective design. There was wide sup-
port for phased construction. In San
Francisco, there was some support for
building treatment plants with 10 years
of growth capacity and sewers with 20
years of reserve capacity.
Industry and professional witnesses
opposed restricting reserve capacity
and opposed limiting the program, to
backlog projects,
Environmental organization wit-
nesses supported limiting reserve capa-
city. They cited studies that show that
"over-design" is a problem and can
bring adverse secondary impacts.
Issue 3: Restrict Types of Projects
Eligible?
Quarles explained that limiting eli-
gibility could "reduce the Federal bur-
den" and could allow the Federal gov-
ernment to focus its grants on "projects
that are most essential to meet the
water quality goals" of the Act.
State and local government witnesses
were mostly opposed to any change in
the type of project eligible for grants.
Some said they could support elimina-
tion of collector sewers, but they
recommended that be done adminis-
tratively by EPA, not by amending the
law. They cited the general financial
need of State and local governments.
And they noted that some collector
sewers are needed for public health
reasons.
Industry and professional witnesses
opposed any change in types of projects
eligible for grants. They said it would
be unfair and inequitable to impose
such limits. They said engineers strive
for cost-effective projects and that
limiting eligibility of some facilities
would limit cost effectiveness.
Environmental organization wit-
nesses made limited comments on 'his
issue. Generally, they took DO strong
position.
Issue 4: Extend 1977 Deadline?
It is estimated that 9.000 communi-
ties serving 60 percent of the 1977
population will not be able to comply
with the 1977 secondary treatment re-
quirement. Quarles noted that the $18
billion "is not sufficient to cover the
1977 needs." He also added that com-
munities funded with Federal grants
by 1977 "will not aJl be able to com-
plete construcuon by 1977." F3ecause
of this, in his opinion, "the obvious
solution is to extend the deadiire either
on a ease by case basis or by an overall
extension of the compliance date."
There was universal support for ex-
tending the deadline, generally on a
case by ease basis, based on good-faith
efforts and availability of lunds. There
was general support for 1983 as a
maximum deadline.
-------
Staff Boosted, Other Changes Made To Expedite Grant Program
The staff of EPA's construction
grant program will be boosted to 1,007
people this year, Administrator Russell
E. Train announced recently.
There were 545 positions in the
grant and auditing program in fiscal
year 1975. That was increased to 707
for fiscal 1976 by shifting personnel
within EPA. An additional 50 people
in EPA are now being shifted to the
program and 250 new positions have
been created.
Train said the great majority of new
people hired will be assigned to EPA's
ten regional offices.
The staff increase was one of several
changes made recently to improve the
administration and effectiveness of
the construction grant program. The
changes were recommended by a
special EPA task force report and
other studies that identified bottlenecks
and problems, including inadequate
staffing.
Other actions recently taken to
stiengthen program administration and
expedite the flow of Federal funds into
construction grants include:
• Increased use of preapplication con-
ferences to make sure the grant process
and requirements are clearly explained
to applicants.
• Greater use of the "project man-
ager" concept, under which one EPA
regional office staff member will handle
a grant application from the preappli-
cation conference stage through com-
pletion of the project.
• Development of a national system to
track project progress from the time a
project is placed on a State priority list.
• Development of simplified guide-
lines for various aspects of the
program.
• Clarification of internal responsi-
bilities to improve coordination and
eliminate duplicativc reviews.
• A step-up in interim inspections
and audits by regional office staff mem-
bers.
• Increased emphasis on program
management by the EPA national
program manager.
• Greater delegation of authority to
States willing and able to administer
the grant program to the extent per-
mitted by law.
• Development of special teams to
visit regional offices and assess impli-
cation of the many recommendations
made by the EPA special task force.
Another recent development is the
creation of a national construction
grant public information program.
Under the accelerated public educa-
tion effort, a new reference manual was
issued in August; it contains regula-
tions, guidelines, and related technical
publications. A more extensive con-
struction grants manual is now being
prepared. Also in production is a new
film, for general audiences, on the
grant program. *\nd a quarterly news-
letter (this is the first issue) was
created.
A major effort is being made to
identify the many people involved or
interested in the construction grant
program and to add their names to a
mailing list for program publications.
Planning is also underway to develop
new publications, both general and
technical in nature.
(Note to the reader: If you did not
receive your own copy of this news-
letter in the mail, and if you wish to be
added to the mailing list, fill out and
send in the mailing list application
enclosed with this newsletter.)
Industry witnesses urged extensions
of deadlines for industrial plants that
send compatible wastes to public plants
for treatment.
Issue 5: Delegate More Responsibility
to States?
Legislation supported by EPA has
already been introduced to allow
States to certify grant applications and
to limit EPA's role largely to overall
policy-making and to auditing and
monitoring grant activities performed
by the States. EPA would retain res-
ponsibility for environmental impact
statements on individual projects,
There was strong support for giving
the States more responsibility — but
only with the understanding that
States need more money and personnel
to do the job. Some witnesses cautioned
that the program could be slowed down
if greater responsibility is delegated to
States and urged safeguards.
Except for Issue 5, EPA has not yet
taken a position on these issues. The
agency is now considering the views
expressed at the public hearings to de-
termine what other amendments, if
any, to recommend to Congress.
Some 650 people, in total, attended
the four public hearings. About 110
witnesses were heard and written com-
ments were submitted by about 40
others.
(For further information on the five
issues, see background papers pub-
lished in the May 28, 1975 Federal
Register.)
Jobs and Clean Water:
Did You Know That. .
. . . The waste treatment plant con-
struction program is now the largest
public works program in the United
States, surpassing highway building.
. . . The Bureau of Labor Statistics esti-
mates that about 25,000 on-site, year-
long jobs are generated for each $1
billion worth of sewage treatment fa-
cility construction. That includes jobs
for pipelayers, operating engineers,
laborers, administrative and clerical
personnel.
. . . It's estimated that 20,000-25,000
additional jobs are generated off-site
to plan and design the facilities and to
produce and transport materials and
equipment for each $1 billion.
. . . Each $1 billion thus produces an
average of 45,000 year-long jobs.
... In fiscal year 1974, total spending
(Federal, State and local) for treat-
ment facilities was about $2.3 billion.
That translates into some 103,500
year-long jobs.
. . . The $18 billion for construction
grants provided by the 1972 law will,
under the present 75 percent grant.
formula, produce $6 billion more in
State and local investments in treat-
ment facilities, for a total of $24 bil-
lion. That translates into 1,080,000
year-long jobs over the life of the
grant program.
. . . While not quantifiable, the addi-
tional economic stimulus, the "multi-
plier effect," of a program that creates
more than one million jobs, is just as
real as its goal to make the Nation's
waters cleaner and safer.
-------
The Beginning-
Influent station,
Baltimore, Maryland.
The End Clean Water.
Treatment Plant-Drinking Water Link Studied
EPA is studying discharges from
municipal wastewater treatment plants
as a possible source of contamination
of drinking water. The studies are part
of EPA's investigations under the 1974
Safe Drinking Water Act, which di-
rects EPA to identify the sources,
nature, and extent of contamination
of the Nation's drinking water.
Other possible sources being inves-
tigated include industrial effluents,
chlorination processes, and runoff
from farm land.
EPA recently submitted its first re-
port to Congress under the 1974 law.
The report includes preliminary find-
ings of a national survey which found
small quantities of organics in all 80
drinking water systems tested. The
report provides details on EPA's
drinking water program and includes
the proposed national drinking water
standards issued in April. A sequel
report will be made to Congress in
December 1975 and will contain rec-
ommendations for future actions to
control drinking water contaminants.
The report entitled, "Preliminary
Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens
in Drinking Water," is available from
the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Va. 22161.
Environmental Factors
Slighted Says Report
Environmental considerations are
not getting proper attention in local
government planning for construction
of wastewater treatment facilities, ac-
cording to a report issued recently by
EPA:
Prepared for EPA by Teknekron,
Inc. of Washington, D.C., the report
cited inadequate local agency staff re-
sources and/or environmental orien-
tation. It said environmental concerns
are subordinated to technical and eco-
nomic considerations.
The report also noted that local
governments too often hold public
hearings "in a manner which dis-
courages effective public participa-
tion." And the report noted that local
government planners too often ignore
information presented by outsiders in
their decision-making.
The report, "Use of Environmen-
tal Analysis on Wastewater Facilities
by Local Government," is available
from the Superintendent of Docu-
ments, U.S. Government Printing Of-
fice, Washington, D.C. 20402. Price:
$2.70.
It Can Be Done
"The result of all this Federal,
State, city, and individual action is
a river that has come back from
the depths of oily, foul despair to a
river in which the Department of
Natural Resources can now plant
trout and salmon—as it has done
during each of the last two years.
Catches of these fish have startled
some oldtime anglers who daily line
the river's shores, and the good
word is now making the rounds—
fishing is getting better on the De-
troit River! And by the end of
next year, when even tougher re-
strictions against pollution go into
effect, what's better now will
change to best. The Detroit River
is on its way to being a clean
stream once again."
—From "Return of the River,"
Michigan Natural Resources
magazine.
10
------- |