TD746
.U54
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water and Waste
Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1981
I/O I. X
C.I
1990
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
STRATEGY FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
OOOD81100
-------
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1990 STRATEGY FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
OFFICE OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"This paper presents a preliminary draft
strategy, proposed by EPA staff, for
improving the national municipal wastewater
treatment program. EPA is now considering
the positions offered here. The document is
intended for public review and discussion
to assist EPA in developing its final
1990 Strategy."
January 21, 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
Protection
-------
PREFACE
The proposals presented in the prelimiiiary draft strategy are the
result of both a major effort within the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and extensive participation on the part of the interested public
through meetings and the distribution of relevant issue and background
papers prepared by EPA. Some of the recommendations in the draft
represent a compromise among diverse positions of various constituents of
the program. Further refinement of those recommendations will continue
through public participation and ongoing agency policy review as the
draTt~strategy is put in final form.
In developing the draft Strategy, recommendations in each area were
based on an assumption of continued federal funding support. Given
current economic conditions and calls for budget constraints, Congress
and the Administration may determine that program funding should be
reduced. Substantial changes in funding levels would require
re-evaluation of some of the recommendations as well as revision
of the timetable for achieving the Clean Water Act goals. A detailed
examination of a wide range of funding alternatives can be found in the
EPA staff paper prepared on funding (Task I of the 1990 Strategy).
Several of the recommendations in the preliminary draft Strategy
will depend on Congressional action for their implementation; others will
require the amendment of existing regulations for their accomplishment;
and some can be accomplished simply by administrative action by EPA or
other federal agencies. In developing a final 1990 Strategy and an
action plan for its implementation, EPA will work closely with
Congressional staffs, other federal agencies and the widely varying
constituents of the Construction Grants Program to insure that the future
course charted for the program is a workable and effective means to
achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act.
The 1990 Strategy draft was prepared by an EPA Task Force within the
Office of Water and Waste Management. Assistance to EPA staff in this
effort was provided by Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc.; The Synectics
Group; and Larry Walker Associates, Inc. Comments on the preliminary
draft strategy should be submitted to Merna Hurd, Associate Assistant
Administrator for Water and Waste Management, U.S. EPA, (WH-556),
401 M Street, S.W.7 Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY "1
Goals ]
Key Recommendations and Risks of the 1990 Strategy 3
Planning—The Context of the Program 5
Admi ni strati on of the Program 6
Management—Roles in Program Management:
Federal, State and Local 10
The Strategy Devel opment Process 12
I. APPROACH TO THE 1990 STRATEGY 13
Introduction 13
Evolution of the Construction Grants Program ^
Rationale for Undertaking the 1990 Strategy Development 15
The Strategy Devel opment Process 1°
Structure of the Strategy Document I7
II. GOALS AND MAJOR THEMES OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS STRATEGY 19
Program Management Goals for 1990 19
Major Themes for Achieving the 1990 Objectives 22
III. SPECIFIC PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS 29
PI anning--The Context of the Program 29
Administration of the Program 35
Management—Roles in Program Management:
Federal, State and Local 47
APPENDICES 53
Appendix A: List of 1990 Issue Papers and Detailed Strategies 53
Appendix B: Glossary of Keywords and Acronyms 57
Appendix C: Meetings, Briefings, Work Sessions, and Conferences
with Numerous Publics on the 1990 Strategy 63
Appendix D: 1990 National Construction Grants Strategy Workshop
Participants 65
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The preliminary draft 1990 Strategy is the product of the most
comprehensive review and redirection that EPA has ever conducted of its
Construction Grants Program under the Clean Water Act. The proposed 1990
Strategy embodies substantial changes in areas such as the relative roles
of the federal and state governments, a more explicit emphasis on water
quality impacts as the basis for decisions, a more flexible and shorter
grants process, and a renewed emphasis on eliminating serious compliance
problems.
Under this 1990 Strategy, the Construction Grants Program will be
run primarily by the states, which will have all responsibility for
individual project actions. The federal role will be one of setting
goals and objectives, working with the states, and evaluating state
programs on the basis of progress toward national water quality goals.
One of the proposed Strategy's chief goals is to enable tne nation to
achieve fishable /swimmable waters wherever attainable.
The revised Construction Grants Program will be simpler and shorter
for the grantees. It includes a goal of saving more than 25 percent of
the time it now takes to receive and carry out a grant under the.program.
Also, municipalities and states will have more flexibility in responding
to program requirements in ways that are easiest and most appropriate for
them. States will be encouraged to simplify the grants process for small
communities so it will be tailored to their special needs and
circumstances.
The changes proposed here are expected to significantly reduce the
incidence of facilities in serious noncompliance with their discharge
permits. A specific goal is to reduce serious noncompliance from present
estimated levels of 30 percent or more to less than 5 percent by 1990.
Strict enforcement coupled with diagnostic reviews will be key to
achieving such a compliance record.
Overall, the 1990 Strategy is expected to make more effective use of
the federal funds invested in sewage treatment facilities, to result in a
program that is more responsive to state and local conditions and needs,
and to yield significant water quality benefits to the nation. The
sections that follow summarize the key elements of the 1990 Strategy.
GOALS
The preliminary draft 1990 Strategy proposes goals for the
construction grants program that are based on the Agency's analysis of
the viability of achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act related to
municipal dischargers. Before these proposed goals could be adopted as
program policy it would be necessary for Congress to amend the dates
contained in the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the major goals of the
Act are the elimination, by 1985, of the discharge of pollutants into the
-------
navigable waters, and the achievement, by 1983, of an interim goal of
fishable/swimmable waters wherever attainable. Further, the Act states
as a purpose of the Construction Grants Program to "require and assist in
providing waste treatment practices that provide for the application of
best practicable waste treatment technology" (BPWTT). At the time those
goals were set, neither the total national cost nor the environmental and
technical obstacles to achieving them were foreseen. Based on current
cost projections and funding levels, the Strategy proposes two revised
goals:
t To achieve fishable/swimmable waters wherever attainable, by
1990, and
• To achieve BPWTT everywhere.
If it is necessary to reduce the funding level of the program, the dates
projected for completion of the program will have to be adjusted correspondingly.
In any case, these goals will not be easily attained. However, the Agency
believes that through the full cooperation of federal, state and local
government agencies and the careful selection of priorities, achievement
of these goals is realistic. States will be developing individual
strategies to achieve these goals for "completion" of the program. They
will be encouraged to seriously consider options for lowering the federal
share of funding, re-evaluate the eligibilities of various types of
projects, and explore alternatives for providing supplemental funds
through such means as state loan programs to maximize the benefits from
limited federal funds. EPA will also continue to assess the viability of
meeting these goals as the Strategy is implemented.
Achieving the goal of fishable/swimmable water in many areas
depends not only on control of municipal wastewater discharges, but also
on the continued installation of industrial controls and the
implementation of nonpoint source pollution controls. Industrial
control has progressed well and should support attainment of the 1990
goal. Nonpoint source control has been slower, however, and in some
cases may delay attainment of this water quality level. There are also
areas where fishable /swimmable waters will not be achieved due to
natural conditions. The 1990 Strategy, therefore, stresses the
importance of realistic judgments regarding the attainability of such
water quality levels on individual waterways as a basis for allocating
limited technical and dollar resources.
At the same time the draft Strategy also maintains the long-term
goal of secondary, or biological, treatment everywhere. Achieving this
goal may take longer than 1990, depending on funding levels and the
personnel and other resources of states and municipalities. It is
considered an important national objective to provide a minimum level of
removal of conventional and toxic pollutants for the enhancement of
surface and ground water quality and the protection of public health.
Legislative and regulatory amendments will be required to effect the
proposed postponement of dates in the Act - to allow NPDES permits to
extend beyond 1983, and to legitimately delay the attainment of goals for
fishable/swimmable waters and installation of BPWTT. The draft Strategy
recommends these changes in order to allow the states to determine the
appropriateness of such extensions case-by-case.
-------
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND RISKS OF THE 1990 STRATEGY
The 1990 Strategy includes numerous recommendations for changes in
the program to accomplish the proposed goals and other targets described
above. The most significant of these are listed briefly below to
highlight the specifics and to illustrate the thrust of the draft
Strategy.
Actions Related to Increased State Responsibility
and Accountability for Program Management
• EPA will seek legislative amendments to allow full delegation
(including the delegation of grant making authority) to states,
thus placing total responsibility for project level decisions
and primary responsibility for all other decisions at the state
level.
• By 1983 each state will develop its own strategy for completion
of the Construction Grants Program. The strategy will
categorize projects based on water quality impacts, develop a
schedule for completion of all projects in the program, and
outline the necessary program support activities such as
standards reevaluation and monitoring programs.
• Each state will establish compliance goals for the POTWs within
its jurisdiction. These goals will be incorporated into the
delegation agreements and will provide one basis for evaluation
of the state's performance.
• States will be held accountable for progress towards program
goals. EPA will develop a management evaluation system that
focuses on direct measures of performance, incl uding the number
of projects constructed, the number of plants out of
compliance, improvements in water quality, and measures to
ensure fiscal integrity.
t EPA will request authority from Congress to withold grant funds
in extreme cases where states have poor performance records and
inadequate programs for correction, as determined by EPA
oversight.
Actions Related to POTM Responsibility and Accountability
• Local POTWs will be held accountable for the long-term
successful performance and compliance of their systems:
second round grants to communities for expansion will not
be grant eligible
enforcement actions will be pursued where necessary to
ensure compliance
-------
a sunset date will eventually be recommended by EPA for
the time when the construction grants program can be
completed
municipalities will demonstrate to the state that they
have adequate financial and management resources to become
self-sufficient (i.e., long term financial management
plans).
Local compliance problems will be dealt with through a program
of:
diagnostic analyses of operating, design and financial
characteristics
technical and management assistance
a strong enforcement program.
EPA will request authority from Congress to issue
administrative orders imposing sewer bans and other sanctions
in the cases of severely recalcitrant communities.
Qualified local grantees can be certified by the state so that
they are able to proceed through most parts of the process
without further review by the states.
Actions Related to EPAs Establishment of Reasonable Construction Grants
Program Requirements
• The technical definition of secondary treatment will be
modified to allow other biological treatment such as trickling
filters.
• A minimum, technology-based standard of secondary treatment
everywhere will be maintained, while greater emphasis will be
placed on water quality effects in scheduling projects and
setting priorities for funding.
• The time required to move through the grants process will be
reduced by at least 25 percent. EPA will encourage the use of
tools such as generic plans to streamline the process for small
communities by an even greater amount.
• EPA will emphasize state consideration of attainability in
revising water quality standards and will issue guidance on the
technical, environmental and economic attainability of water
quality standard;
is.
EPA will continue to develop criteria and standards related to
toxic pollutants. The Agency will also develop methodologies
for evaluation of the tradeoffs between different pollutant
sources as they affect municipal discharge requirements.
-------
EPA will work with states and local agencies to develop a
combined sewer overflow and urban storm runoff control
strategy. The strategy will include policies to account for
high flows in water quality standards and NPDES permits.
EPA will request legislative authority to modify present
funding policies for rural projects, innovative projects and
alternative projects in the following ways:
all states will be encouraged to set aside funds for
projects in communities under 10,000. These funds would
not be restricted to alternative projects, but would be
available for all cost-effective projects
innovative projects would be funded from a permanent set
aside at a rate ten percent higher than conventional
projects; set aside funds not obligated by states would
revert to a national pool for innovative projects. Manage-
ment assistance will be available for applicants.
alternative projects would be funded at the same increased
rate as innovative but would not be eligible for set-aside
funds. An active national assistance program for
alternative systems will be expanded and model state
management programs will be developed.
Risks of the 1990 Strategy
It must be acknowledged that there are risks as well as benefits
associated with several of the major recommendations in the 1990
Strategy. Removing the federal agency entirely from project review and
decision making could lead to situations where narrowly defined interests
take precedence over national concerns with improving water quality;
allowing greater flexibility to state and local governments in fulfilling
the responsibilities of the program could lead to major inconsistencies
and inequities for reviewers and applicants alike; and ironically, the
very changes in requirements designed to streamline the process could
slow it down during the initial phase of implementation. It is the
Agency's judgment, however, that these risks can be minimized by sound
management oversight, and cooperative relationships between levels of
government, and that the potential benefits to be gained from proposals
in the strategy outweigh those risks.
PLANNING—THE CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAM
Effective planning and priority-setting will be essential in order
to achieve the basic goals of the Clean Water Act under the practical
resource limitations that face all levels of government today. Any
likely level of funding for the Construction Grants Program over the next
decade will not support funding of all the sewage treatment needs of
communities throughout the nation. Accordingly, the draft 1990 Strategy
calls for an explicit emphasis on water quality impacts in planning,
-------
priority-setting, and decision making so that the nation will get the
most beneficial water quality results from its expenditure of federal
funds. In this context the phrase "water quality impacts" is meant to be
broad enough to include effects on surface and ground water and to
include considerations of public health.
No extensive new planning programs are envisioned to achieve these
objectives. The 1990 Strategy is calling for effective use to be made of
existing data and plans, professional judgment, and the ongoing
monitoring which is already being conducted by states and POTWs. The
emphasis on water quality referred to throughout the Strategy is a
reference to incorporating such information into decision making and
priority-setting at all levels of government which many states are
already doing.
In order to accomplish this emphasis on water quality, each state
will be asked to develop its own state strategy for completion of the
program and for incorporating national as well as state priorities into
its decision processes. Each state will be requested to review its list
of future project needs and to classify them, on the basis of existing
data, according to the beneficial effect they will have on water quality.
The most important category will be those projects that will lead to
attainment of water quality standards and beneficial uses of waters.
States will be expected to use this categorization of projects as an
important factor in their planning and priority-setting activities. Some
states may have already accomplished much of this activity through their
existing water quality management plan.
States will also be asked to develop a schedule of current and
future projects for completion of the entire Construction Grants Program.
Two schedules will be requested: one based on a funding target
established by the Agency, and another showing the fastest possible
completion of the program if there were no funding constraints. These
schedules, used in conjunction with the strategies that states will perpare
will also allow an assessment of the effects of various reduced levels of
funding.
In conjunction with this emphasis on water quality results, the
draft 1990 Strategy also proposes some revisions to standards. One
revision is to modify the technical definition of "secondary treatment"
to allow biological treatment processes such as trickling filters where
appropriate. Another is to develop a strategy for controlling CSOs and
urban stormwater runoff that addresses compliance of municipal facilities
with permit conditions during wet weather, high-flow conditions. A third
revision is to encourage states to gradually phase consideration of
toxics into water quality standards.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM
Significant changes are proposed in the way funding decisions are
made, in the operation of the grants process, and in the follow-up to
assure that the facilities built are in compliance with their permits.
-------
In each area the 1990 Strategy proposed giving states the primary
responsibility for administering the program. The federal role will
be three-fold: to ensure that states are making reasonable progress
toward national goals and effective use of federal funds, to provide
management and technical assistance, and to represent overriding
federal concerns in special instances.
Funding
A wide variety of alternatives for funding mechanisms, eligibilities,
and the program implications of various funding levels has been analyzed
in the development of the Funding Strategy staff paper (Task I of the
Draft 1990 Strategy), which is available for review. EPA deemed it
inappropriate to include specific recommendations related to funding in
this draft, in light of current national economic conditions and the
necessity for the new Administration to address that situation
comprehensively and immediately. Therefore, proposed goals and timetables
for completion of the program are based on current funding levels, with
the full understanding that those targets may need to be modified in light
of revised program funding. As the Administration develops its new
budget, the Agency will make those revisions.
Operations—An Efficient and Effective Grants Program
An important element of the 1990 Strategy is a series of changes
aimed at correcting shortcomings in the present process of applying for,
obtaining, and carrying out grants under the program. The Construction
Grants Program has been criticized for taking too long, sometimes over
ten years, to complete a single, moderate-si zed project; for involving
excessive paperwork and procedural requirements; and for requiring small
systems to meet many of the requirements that are really only appropriate
for much larger systems.
Several changes are intended to shorten the time required to get
through the grants process. The substantial delegation of the program
from the federal government to the states should help shorten time
requirements by eliminating dual state-federal reviews. In addition,
states will be encouraged to hold preapplicantion conferences and
otherwise provide guidance to applicants early in the process. EPA will
develop and provide aids to the states such as a tracking system with a
model CPM chart showing the schedule of activities that other states,
such as California, have developed to streamline their programs.
-------
A significant change directed at shortening the time in the grants
process is the establishment of contracted time schedules. Under this
practice, the grantee and the state will agree during the facility
planning stage to specific time schedules for' major activities for the
remainder of the project. These schedules form a "contract" that is
binding on both the grantee as a condition of its grant and on the state
for its various review and approval activities. Additional timing
improvements will also result from changes in two other areas which are
objectives in their own rights—simplifying the grant procedures, and
providing more local responsibility and flexibility.
Simplifying the grants process is . be accomplished through
consolidating some requirements and providing increased flexibility in
how localities and states meet other requirements. EPA will revise its
grants regulations where necessary to ensure that states have sufficient
flexibility to implement and manage their programs as efficiently as
possible. States will be encouraged to make their requirements for
localities as flexible as possible while maintaining the environmental
and economic integrity of the program. The procurement requirements will
be simplified as much as possible. EPA will also work with other federal
agencies to determine the feasibility of consolidating requirements for
compliance with the more than 50 federal laws or regulations that affect
construction grants projects.
Local responsibility, and with it flexibility, is to be increased
for qualified communities under the Strategy. Grantees that have
demonstrated adequate capability and sound management will be certified
to manage a substantial part of the grants process themselves, without
state or federal review of many agreed upon activities. In addition, the
Strategy recommends requesting the legislative changes needed to allow
advanced work on Step 2, the detailed design activities, before full
approval of the Step 2 application.
Small communities are of special concern to EPA. They account for
the greatest number of grants in the program, but generally lack the
technical and management staff who are experienced with projects such as
those funded in this program. Their problems are often different from
those of the larger cities, yet they are frequently required to follow
the same procedures that the larger cities follow. To deal more
effectively with the special needs and conditions of small communities,
the 1990 Strategy encourages states to greatly simplify the grants
processes for small communities. EPA will facilitate the simplification
effort by providing generic facility plans that can be used for common
small system conditions. EPA will also encourage the use of third-party
management arrangements under which an experienced outside person manages
the community's grant activities.
-------
Compliance—The Integrity of the Program
The final step in administering the Construction Grants Program is
the follow-up to assure that facilities funded under the program are in
compliance with their discharge permits. The draft 1990 Strategy
includes proposals to improve the quality of compliance information, to
improve the compliance rates of new treatment systems being completed
under the program, and to improve the compliance rates of existing
treatment systems.
To improve the data on compliance, EPA will improve and expand its
existing compliance data management system to enable the states and EPA
to make maximum use of the present monitoring data that are already being
collected and reported. Use of POTW performance reviews by the states is
recommended as a means of improving the quality of this self-monitoring
data. Some redefinition and ranking of "noncompliance" events must also
be developed in order to more easily distinguish those systems that have
serious compliance problems from those that have violations less serious
in degree, frequency, or type.
The proposals that will improve the compliance records of new
facilities are designed to improve the design and project management
activities of the process to ensure that the systems designed and built
will be appropriate and operable under various conditions. The Strategy
reaffirms the necessity of a pretreatment program for every POTW which
has significant industrial flows into it. Moreover, the Strategy
recommends that the start-up assistance eligibility for new plants be
expanded to insure that each plant is fully operational before being
turned over to the community. Plans to modify the guidance for
infiltration and inflow analyses to be more realistic, and a proposal to
develop conditions for wet weather deviations in permits under selected
circumstances are also a part of the recommendations in the compliance
area.
The approach to achieve compliance at existing facilities is two-
pronged: (1) providing information and assistance, and (2) maintaining a
strong enforcement program. A key element in the first area is
requiring, where appropriate, diagnostic reviews of facilities that are
in serious noncompliance. These reviews can cover all aspects of
operation including management, financial management, staffing,
operation, maintenance and quality control. One product of such an
evaluation would be a composite correction program (CCP) to correct all
the deficiencies that contribute to noncompliance. The community would
be responsible for carrying out the CCP and achieving compliance.
The draft Strategy proposes that the CCP form the basis for the
state's assistance to the local community. It may identify specific
areas in which the community needs technical, management, or financial
assistance, and may even suggest innovative management techniques for the
community, such as the "circuit rider" concept.
-------
Finally, the CCP would also be a focus of aggressive enforcement
actions against recalcitrant communities. Because the CCP cites the
specific actions that the local community should undertake to achieve
compliance, it is the ideal focal point for enforcement efforts. Strong
actions, including court action, sewer bans, and compulsory third-party
management, will be taken when necessary to get communities to implement
their CCPs on agreed upon timetables. Communities must realize that
they, as well as industrial sources of water pollution, will be subject
to strong enforcement action and will be responsible for maintaining
their facilities in compliance. Enforcement action will be used against
existing plants as well as municipalities which have not yet constructed
plants, and against minor as well as major facilities.
The long-run compliance of sewage treatment facilities rests with
the municipalities and will be a function of each POTW's management
capability and financial strength. The Strategy seeks to assure long-run
compliance by encouraging the financial and management self-sufficiency
of wastewater utility systems. Localities must be prepared to collect
adequate revenues to cover their long term water quality management
needs. This is to be accomplished by clearly recognizing that such
long-term responsibilities fall to localities. Each POTW should develop
a financial and management plan for the future to demonstrate its ability
to become self-sufficient.
MANAGEMENT: FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ROLES
As stated earlier, a key element of the 1990 Strategy is changing
the roles of the state and federal governments: full delegation of the
operational and direct management aspects of the program will rest with
the states and policy and managerial oversight efforts will rest with
EPA. Under this concept, delegated states will be responsible for
managing individual grant projects and for managing the grants program
within their states. The states will be given considerable flexibility
in how they choose to administer the program and will be held accountable
for the achievement of the program objectives. EPA will set national
program goals, review and approve state programs, regularly monitor the
performance of the states, and have some involvement in those projects
where there is an overriding federal concern due to special
circumstances.
This management approach is built on achieving full delegation of
all activities to all states. Delegation is presently being slowed, and
in some cases stopped, by institutional barriers. In order to remove
these barriers, EPA will look for legislative and regulatory changes
allowing all operational responsibilities to be delegated. This would
include such responsibilities as bid protest resolution, MBE/WBE, wage
rate determinations, NEPA activities, final resolution of audit
exceptions, and other currently non-delegable activities.
10
-------
To ensure that water quality objectives are continuing to be met and
that the program is running effectively and efficiently, the Agency will
have to participate in monitoring and oversight of state programs.
State performance will be evaluated against the following four
general performance characteristics: quality of projects funded;
timeliness of planning, design, and construction of facilities;
preservation of program integrity; and management of the program.
Specific state performance measures have been developed for each
category. These should be used as tools for evaluating each state's
program.
EPA will develop a national oversight program that combines an
annual evaluation (performed by an evaluation team) with periodic
regional reviews of state-specific objectives. The annual evaluation
stresses program outcomes rather than procedures and will focus on
national objectives such as the state program's fiscal integrity, and
that high quality, environmentally sound, and cost effective projects are
being funded. Specific performance measures to be used in these
evaluations will be developed.
Some specific state objectives will be negotiated by the state and
Regional offices in a system of management by objective. The state will
submit an annual report detailing its progress towards meeting the
objectives. These reports will be reviewed by the Regional office. This
will allow EPA to consider state variations for particular objectives
while not losing sight of the national objectives.
In conjunction with the monitoring program, EPA will maintain a
system of incentives and sanctions to ensure that, once each state has
accepted full delegation, its performance is sustained and national
interests are protected. An effective system rewards good performance;
thus, the emphasis in the EPA system will be placed on the positive and
incentive side of management. States with well managed programs will be
noted to Congress and used as examples.
If, during the course of an evaluation, EPA finds a state's
performance is lacking in an area, it will work directly with the state
to provide technical or management assistance. In severe cases, or where
state performance deteriorates, EPA will request legislative adjustments
for the following two authorities:
t To withold the 2% of 205(g) monies for use by EPA to administer
the program itself, either through contract or other third
parties or with in-house staff; and
• To terminate or suspend construction grants program assistance
to projects in the states, until such time as the state
performance meets national standards.
These sanctions will apply only in cases of severe performance
problems, and will be based on uniform criteria known to the states in
advance. This specific criteria will be developed in conjunction with
the state and other relevant officials as part of the action plan.
11
-------
THE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The 1990 Strategy development process has reached a major milestone,
but it is not yet complete. The preliminary draft Strategy currently
comprises a set of proposals consolidating initial work in a variety of
areas that is now ready for public review and comment. The development
of these proposals has already involved the active participation of a
diverse group of people representing state and local governments,
consulting engineers, environmentalists, labor, industry, public interest
groups, and the public at large.
In the coming weeks, these and other groups will have the
opportunity to comment on the preliminary draft strategy in public
meetings and in written documents. After receiving comments, the Agency,
under the new Administration, will incorporate appropriate modifications
and then publish a proposed 1990 Strategy. After further comment and
revision, EPA and the states will then begin their implementation of the
final Strategy through a combination of legislative, regulatory, and
aministrative efforts.
12
-------
I. APPROACH TO THE 1990 STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
The preliminary draft 1990 Strategy for the Construction Grants
Program proposes changes to improve the program and thereby achieve
further progress toward the goals of the Clean Water Act in the next
decade. The proposed strategy includes recommendations for changes
designed to streamline the program, make the expenditure of grant funds
as cost-effective as possible, and reduce unnecessary regulatory require-
ments.
Implementation of the proposals which constitute the final 1990
Strategy will require the cooperation and joint efforts of Congress, the
Administration, the States, and local governments. In some cases
legislative changes will be required, in other instances regulations may
need to be changed, and in still other cases administrative actions such
as State-EPA delegation agreements must be developed or revised. All of
this will require time and cooperation. The purpose of this draft is to
solicit comments on the substance of these proposals. EPA recognizes
that many of the proposals it is formulating in the 1990 Strategy will
eventually be made formally as proposals to Congress and could not be
implemented unilaterally. The Agency is pledged to cooperate closely
with all parties to implement whatever modifications are needed in the
program to achieve its goals effectively.
This preliminary strategy stems from a comprehensive examination
of the Construction Grants Program, including its successes and failures
in the past and a view of the challenges facing the program in the future.
This process has involved the active participation of hundreds of people
outside the federal government, including state, local, and county
officials, the public, professional engineers, business and industry
representatives, and others.
The following sections of this Chapter provide a background
perspective for reading and interpreting the recommendations of the
subsequent chapters. The first section describes the evolution of the
program and of the roles of the federal, state, and local governments.
The next summarizes EPA's rationale in undertaking the 1990 Strategy
effort. The next section briefly describes the types of activities
and organizations that were involved in EPA's 1990 Strategy development
process. The final section describes the structure of this document
and identifies other sources of information on the Strategy.
13
-------
EVOLUTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM
The Construction Grants Program grew out of a recognition as early
as the 1950's that inadequate municipal sewage treatment was a serious
contributor to the nation's water pollution and that it was a problem for
which many municipalities were not financially prepared. For almost 25
years the Federal government has participated with state and local
governments in controlling and abating water pollution. As a result,
water pollution control programs are among the oldest and most
established of the government's current environmental programs.
Historically, wastewater collection and treatment had been a
municipal responsibility; the agencies that handle wastewater treatment
had generally not operated as self-sufficient utilities. Unlike their
water supply counterparts, many wastewater agencies were dependent on the
municipality's general funds, received largely from real estate taxes, to
support their operating costs. In the competition for limited money,
more apparently desirable public facilities such as schools, libraries,
and police and fire stations enjoyed a big advantage over wastewater
treatment facilities in obtaining capital improvement funds for
facilities. As a consequence, sewage treatment plants often received
the lowest of political priorities when funds for public works facilities
were allocated. An additional problem involved the long-standing prac-
tice of locating wastewater outfalls downstream from water supply
intakes—thus passing the buck by transporting one community's wastes
to another community's environment.
It was this background that forced an environmentally conscious
Congress to pass legislation in 1972 designed to protect public waters
from further degradation. In the absence of an adequate ongoing local
revenue stream for wastewater operation, Congress embarked on a
substantial Construction Grants Program to assist local government in
building badly needed wastewater collection and treatment facilities.
Since local finances were so constrained and many waterways were
classified as being under interstate jurisdiction, the federal program
was in retrospect the fastest and most assured way to effect large-scale
improvement.
The Clean Water Act passed in 1972 seeks to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
This legislation is the basis for most of EPA's water pollution control
activities, including effluent guideline limitations for industries, and
municipal treatment works, nonpoint source programs, and the funding of
regional water quality management plans.
The Clean Water Act identifies two goals to achieve the basic
objective of the Act. These goals, as they appear in the Act, are
as follows:
• It is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into
navigable waters be eliminated by 1985
14
-------
• It is the national goal that, wherever attainable, an interim
goal of water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983.
The Act goes on to require (in Title III) that all publicly owned
treatment works provide a secondary (biological) treatment as a minimum
level of treatment technology everywhere, irrespective of receiving water
quality. In addition, the Act requires that all POTWs install the best
practicable waste treatment technology (BPWTT) which represents this
minimum level of secondary treatment or whatever higher level is required
to meet water quality standards. All POTWs are required by the Act to
have BPWTT in place no later than July 1, 1983.
The Construction Grants Program provides financial assistance to
communities for achieving the objectives of the Clean Water Act related
to municipal sewage discharges. The program provides funding for up to
75 percent of the eligible capital costs for the construction of
conventional sewage treatment facilities and related projects. It also
offers incentives to communities for innovative and alternative projects
and a set-aside program for rural projects.
As of June 30, 1980, $31.6 billion has been appropriated by Congress
under this program, of which $26 billion has been obligated by EPA in
over 19,000 grants to communities. Of this amount approximately 2,100
projects representing a value of $2.6 billion have been completed. It
is important to note that P.L. 92-500 is not the first effort in this
area; during the 1956-1972 period, prior to the passage of P.L. 92-500
P.L. 84-600 provided assistance to 13,764 projects in the amount of
$5.2 billion. Despite these efforts, preliminary data from the 1980
Needs Survey report a remaining eligible need of $119 billion.
RATIONALE FOR UNDERTAKING THE
1990 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
The Construction Grants Program is a major program by any measure.
Not only has it assisted a large number of communities in the past, but
its active grants are also aiding approximately 10,000 communities
currently. The program is the largest environmental public works effort
in this nation's history and has affected nearly every section of the
country.
This program is also a very significant part of EPA's overall
responsibilities. It is a major element of the Agency's efforts to clean
up and protect the nation's waters. Further, in dollar magnitude, the
Construction Grants Program at $3-4 billion per year has consistently
represented approximately two-thirds of the Agency's total budget, all
going directly to local communities via a state allocation/administration
system.
The needs of the communities across the country, as identified in the
EPA Needs Survey, will exceed the probable available funding through 1990.
However, because the program has always been viewed as remedial--to assist
15
-------
communities in correcting longstanding water pollution problems—not as
a federal entitlement program, it is reasonable and responsible to look
ahead to a sunset for the program. The development of the draft 1990
Strategy has therefore focussed on recommendations designed to make
maximum progress in the coming decade towards achieving the Act's goals
of fishable/swimmable waters.
As with any program of this size and duration, there have been
substantial accomplishments and also criticisms. The accomplishments
have included significant improvements in water quality in many areas
and notable progress toward the national goal of achieving an appropriate
level of sewage treatment in every community throughout the country. •
Critics have taken the Construction Grants Program to task for its
administrative complexity, burdensome requirements, project delays,
facility performance failures, and high costs. In fact, the Agency's
own review of the program has documented the numerous administrative
requirements placed on grantees and has determined that for a medium-to
large-sized treatment project, with construction costs of $10-50 million,
the complete grant and construction plrocess can take seven to eleven
years. EPA's review has also reaffirmed that many sewage treatment
facilities, perhaps as many as 30 percent to 50 percent, are seriously
out of compliance with their discharge permits for substantial portions
of each year (based on a sample of all sewage treatment plants in
operation, not just those funded since the 1972 Act).
THE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
In order to overcome these limitations and to extend the program's
successes, EPA undertook an extensive reassessment of the Construction
Grants Program in five areas: planning, project funding mechanisms and
priorities, operations, compliance, and management. EPA's staff reviewed
the program's record in each of these areas and prepared numerous issue
papers outlining the major issues and options facing the Agency.
Throughout the process, EPA has sought the active involvement of
individuals and organizations outside the federal government. During the
last six months of 1980, over 75 meetings were held to obtain ideas and
suggestions. Meetings were held, for example, with representatives of
such organizations as the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, the Conference of State Legislators, and groups
representing sewage treatment plant executives and operators, engineers,
and public interest groups. In addition, a Policy Board with represen-
tatives from the National Governors' Association and the Association
of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators have
also particpated in the 1990 Strategy effort.
A milestone in this ongoing series of meetings and reviews was
marked by two workshops conducted in November at which all interested
groups were represented. These three-day workshops covered key issues
16
-------
in each of the five review areas. The participants debated issues and
offered recommendations for basic changes in the program. Those proposals
have been a major input to the preliminary draft strategy.
In the weeks ahead, EPA will be soliciting comments and suggestions
on this preliminary draft 1990 Strategy from all interested parties.
As part of that process a series of workshops will be held in several
cities across the country. Also, copies of this preliminary draft
strategy document, detailed staff strategy documents covering the five
major topic areas, and numerous issue papers will be distributed.
Following a full comment period on the preliminary draft strategy,
EPA will revise the document to reflect the agency's response to issues
raised through the process and will include in the strategy an action
plan describing the steps needed for implementation of the recommended
strategy. That revised document will be the subject of formal agency
policy review before it is published in the Federal Register and is
the subject of formal hearings.
STRUCTURE OF THE STRATEGY DOCUMENT
The preliminary draft 1990 Strategy is described in several documents,
at differing levels of detail. This one provides a consolidated summary
of the major recommendations in each of the areas of the 1990 Strategy.
This document is divided into four major sections. The first, an
Executive Summary, provides a summary statement of the overall thrust
of the Strategy and its major recommendations for change in the current
Construction Grants Program. This chapter provides an introduction to
the program and the strategy development process. Chapter II describes
the proposed revised goals for the Construction Grants Program and the
major themes for accomplishing those goals. The final chapter of this
document, Chapter III, sets forth the specific recommendations for change
in the detailed areas of the program.
The detailed Strategy options and recommendations are available from
EPA in five separate documents covering: Planning, Funding, Operations,
Compliance, and Management. These are the products of the five EPA task
recommendations which are summarized in Chapter III of this document.
These are available upon request from EPA. They and over 40 detailed
issue papers developed during the 1990 effort are listed in an attachment
following Chapter III.
A glossary is also included describing key words and acronyms used
in this and other 1990 documents. A list of all meetings and briefings
held to date in connection with the 1990 effort and a list of workshop
participants is included as the final attachment.
17
-------
II. GOALS AND MAJOR THEMES OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS STRATEGY
This chapter presents the goals and major foundations of the
proposed 1990 Construction Grants Strategy. These will set the tone not
only for the construction of publicly owned treatment works over the next
ten years, but also for their operation, maintenance, and long-term
management. When the Strategy is fully implemented it will bring a more
local, flexible, results-oriented character to the program.
A strategy does not exist for its own ends--it must be directed
toward specific goals. There are two types of goals involved in the 1990
Strategy. One type is the management goals which set forth the direction
of the program over the next decade. The other type is intermediate,
process goals which set forth the way in which the program should
operate, such as the length of time which should be adequate to
complete a grant.
The two sections below present both types of goals for the 1990
Strategy. The first section presents the ultimate environmental goals,
while the following section presents the process goals.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT GOALS
FOR 1990
One of the prime purposes of the 1990 Strategy is to define program
management goals which will provide overall direction to the program through
the 1980s. Ideally, the program management goal for the Construction Grants
Program would be to eliminate the discharge of pollutants to navigable
waters from publicly owned treatment works. Achievement of this ultimate
goal of the Clean Water Act, however, is not financially feasible over
the next decade and there is serious doubt as to whether it will ever be
feasible. For this reason, the preliminary draft 1990 Strategy has
focused on achievement of the interim water quality goal of the Act
and the implementation of best practicable waste treatment technology
(BPWTT) as the basis for program management goals through the 1980s.
The two specific program management goals that EPA proposes to
Congress to guide the Construction Grants Program through the 1980s
are as follows:
• To achieve water quality wherever attainable which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water,
by July 1, 1990.
• To achieve best practicable waste treatment technology (BPWTT)
at all publicly owned treatment works as soon as practicable.
These two program management goals are identical to the interim
water quality goal and the BPWTT requirements contained in the Act, with
the exception of the dates. The 1983 dates contained in the act are no
longer considered feasible, given the magnitude of the costs necessary to
achieve these objectives and given the anticipated funding levels of the
next decade at federal, state, and local levels.
19
-------
Relative Importance of Each Goal to the Strategy
EPA proposes that the first program management goal-achieving fish-
able/swimmable waters by 1990-should be given top priority in admini-
stering the program. That will obtain the maximum benefit from the limited
funding and other resources available, by supporting those projects which
will affect water quality the most. While the 1990 date for achievement
of fishable/swimmable waters is the final date for completion of projects
necessary to achieve this objective, most municipalities will be required
to complete their projects earlier, in accordance with the compliance
schedules contained in their NPDES permits based on the state strategy.
EPA proposes the second program management goal-achievement of
BPWTT as soon as practicable-to place further emphasis on achievement of
a minimum standard for wastewater treatment everywhere. This goal of
BPWTT, presently a minimum of secondary treatment, is needed to provide
a minimum level of removal of conventional and toxic pollutants prior to
wastewater discharge everywhere. This objective is important for the
long-term enhancement of surface water quality, maintenance of public
health and protection of ground water resources. Achieving this
objective may extend beyond 1990 depending on funding levels and staff
resources of states and municipalities.
These goals will be difficult to achieve and will require the
coordinated efforts of all levels of government. However, EPA anticipates
that it would be reasonable to achieve the goal of fishable/swimmable
waters by 1990 through the careful selection of priorities and implementation
of the changes proposed in the preliminary draft 1990 Strategy. This is
based on a review of the Needs Survey data, including a detailed case
analysis in four states and extensive discussions with state and
Federal officials over the last several months. The states' individual
strategies for achieving the fishable/swimmable goal will provide the
basis needed to propose a specific date for the achievement of the second
program management goal for BPWTT. The basic purpose of these two program
management goals is to provide overall national direction to the management
of the program through the 1980's, and to direct limited grants funds
towards projects which best facilitate achievement of goals of the Act.
Modified funding levels would obviously change the time schedule for
attainability of both of these goals.
Although the goals support the concept of directing limited funds
first to projects which have the greatest impact on water quality, this
should not be viewed as a weakening of EPA's commitment to achievement
of secondary treatment everywhere. EPA feels strongly that technology
based treatment standards must remain a key element of the national
municipal treatment program and that all communities must achieve this
goal. Given limited funding for all desired projects, however, it is
preferable to fund those secondary treatment projects which result in
fishable/swimmable waters, or which significantly improve water quality,
prior to funding secondary treatment projects with limited water quality
impacts. Eventually, all secondary treatment projects should be constructed,
as they are the foundation for the national water pollution control program
under the Clean Water Act.
20
-------
The proposed program management goals raise the question of whether
EPA might recommend "sunset" of the program after the achievement of the
fishable/swimmable goal. In response to this, EPA's position is that there
should be a sunset to the construction grants program. The challenge is
to identify a realistic date for sunset. It will depend on the economy,
the rate at which progress is made toward program goals, and the potential
availability of alternative funding at the Federal, State or local level to
complete the program. So, while EPA believes there should be a sunset to
the program, the agency also believes strongly in the need for the program
to be completed, i.e., that all required BPWTT projects should be constructed.
While continuing to support the federal grant program as a major source of
funding for achieving this goal, EPA also proposes, in the draft strategy
that States maximize the use of limited federal funds by reducing the
federal share of project costs, eliminating or restricting the eligibility
of certain types of projects, and developing state financed loan programs.
Yet another option which merits careful consideration is the eventual
substitution of a federal loan program for the present grant program, as
discussed in the Funding Strategy paper.
EPA believes that the successful achievement of these two program
management goals is essential if the goals of the Clean Water Act are to
be realized. The Agency, therefore, recommends that these two goals be
the dominant guideposts for both management of the national Construction
Grants Program and for state management of the program over the next
decade. EPA intends to maintain its focus as well as the focus of the
states on these goals by using progress toward these goals as the primary
basis for evaluating each state's performance in administering the program.
Relationship of Goals tn the National Municipal Policy & Strategy (NMPS)
These proposed program management goals have some implications for
implementation of the National Municipal Policy and Strategy (NMPS),
which directs EPA enforcement towards major municipal dischargers and
establishes a system of coordination between those enforcement efforts
and the Construction Grants Program. A major goal of the NMPS is to
assure that grant funding is available to major municipalities with
projects necessary to meet enforceable requirements of the Act.
The proposed program management goals for the 1990 construction
grants strategy emphasizes the funding of projects with substantial
water quality impacts, whether or not they are major municipal projects.
In most cases, major projects will have a significant impact on water
quality, but for some major projects, this will not be the case. It is
likely, therefore, that the priorities established for some major projects
with minimal water quality impacts will not be emphasized under the 1990
Strategy as strongly as they were under the Municipal Policy and Strategy.
This is not to say these large municipalities will go unfunded. On the
contrary, in order to meet the BPWTT program management goal, the major
municipality will be involved in planning, design and construction
over many years, because of the magnitude of the projects. Thus the 1990
Strategy could result in a more extended schedule for these major projects,
but it is likely that planning, design and construction activities will be
underway at a significant rate over these next 10 years. It is EPA's intent
to continue to utilize the National Municipal Policy and Strategy to track
21
-------
the progress of the major projects and, where appropriate, take enforcement
actions. The 1990 Strategy may lead to the extension of the compliance
schedules for some of these projects, but the NMPS will continue to be used
as a prime mechanism for keeping these projects moving ahead in accordance
with the revised compliance schedules and should be developed jointly with
the State strategies.
MAJOR THEMES FOR ACHIEVING THE
1990 GOALS
To achieve the two goals identified in the previous section the
preliminary draft 1990 Strategy has seven major themes for change or
redirection of the program. These often cut across the specific areas
of funding, compliance, and so on, to provide a common underpinning for
the program's redirection at this time. These seven major themes are:
• Maintenance of minimum, technology-based treatment standards,
but greater emphasis on water quality impacts of projects
as a basis for priority-setting and decision-making;
• Expanded state responsibilities, through legislative and
regulatory changes, to the point that virtually all
project-related activities will be delegated to states,
and EPA will concentrate on achievements of national
objectives through the state-administered program;
• Streamlining the grants process to make it more flexible,
faster, and less burdensome;
0 Establishment of a simplified grants process for small grantees;
• Emphasis on future need for POTW self-sufficiency, to
sustain compliance on a long-term basis;
• Increased management attention to compliance of municipal
treatment facilities; and
• Continued encouragement of innovative and alternative
technologies.
Each of these major themes is discussed in the following sections.
Emphasis on Water Quality Impacts in Setting Priorities
In this preliminary draft 1990 Strategy, EPA is proposing to reaffirm
the basic water quality orientation of the Clean Water Act. The draft
recommends explicitly that decisions and priorities under the Construction
Grants Program should accord significant weight to the potential water
quality impacts of proposed projects.
22
-------
Implementation of this emphasis on water quality-based priorities
is described later in the detailed recommendations related to planning.
In order to emphasize this commitment and to be able to evaluate states'
progress in this area, EPA has established two programs goals:
• By early 1983, all States should have categorized their
construction grants projects according to water quality
impact and completed their State Strategy outlining the
ways they will achieve the two program management goals.
• Annually, in the EPA review of state programs, states will
demonstrate that they are funding projects in accordance with
their state strategy and maintaining adequate programs to
achieve the two program management goals.
Management: Federal, State, and Local Roles
Another central theme to the 1990 Strategy is a commitment to full
and rapid delegation of the Construction Grants Program to the states.
This extends the current policy to include delegation of activities
previously considered nondelegable, such as payments to grantees and
deciding most disputes, grant offers, appeals, and protests.
This element of the preliminary draft strategy is also a direct
response to numerous recommendations made to the Agency by representatives
of public, local and state governments, and others during the strategy
development process. The rationale for this recommendation is twofold.
First, it was felt that the states have more knowledge of local and
regional circumstances, are better able to follow-up local implementation
within the state, and are doing much of this already. Second, full
delegation will allow EPA to focus limited resources on the national,
programmatic aspects of the Construction Grants Program, and to perform
a valuable function in policy-setting, long-range planning, management
oversight, and technical and management assistance. It will also allow
EPA to focus on the most critical areas of national interest in
environmental and fiscal areas.
It has been acknowledged by many that states have differing levels
of experience, resources, and readiness to assume full delegation of the
program. Accordingly, delegation may be slower and may require more
assistance in some states than in others. Nonetheless, EPA has been
urged not to delay, but rather to delegate rapidly and to assist states
which request assistance in making the transition. Consequently, the
following goals are incorporated into the 1990 Strategy:
• By the beginning of FY 1983, all States will have agreed to
accept delegation of all activities (including those currently
non-delegable), with assumption of the program no later than
2 years after the signed agreement.
• By the beginning of 1983, a management evaluation system will
be in place so that EPA can oversee state performance to
ensure that national objectives are met.
23
-------
Steamlininci
For various reasons, including congressional mandate, many require-
ments have been added to the construction grants program. The result is
now a maze of paperwork and specific requirements that frustrates local
communities and helps stretch the time for completion of a moderately
sized treatment facility to an average of seven to eleven years. There
are literally dozens of specific requirements, ranging from giving
adequate technical considerations to alternative waste treatment
techniques, such as land application, to ensuring that minority
businesses are included at appropriate levels.
Some improvements can be made within the current construction grants
process. Delegation of the program to the states will help ease these
problems by eliminating dual state and federal reviews and by placing
program responsibility at a level of government which is closer to local
communities. Likewise, within the present program structure, time
requirements can be shortened by improved time management, including
scheduling more activities in parallel, combining some review and
approval steps, and establishing time targets for reviews and approvals.
These are important steps in easing the administrative burden and
shortening the time it takes a community to get through the grants
process, but EPA intends to go one step further. The Agency is proposing
a basic shift in its grant regulations, from specifying procedural
requirements to focusing instead on results and giving grantees more
flexibility in how to achieve them.
The combination of these changes—delegation to the states,
improving time management and providing more local flexibility in how to
meet program requirements—should result in significant streamlining of
the program. EPA is establishing the following goal for these efforts:
• On average, a greater than 25 percent reduction will be
achieved in the time required to complete the grants process,
from the initial Step 1 application through project closeout
without sacrificing project quality or achievement of national
goals.
Small Community Grants Process
In its meetings with various organizations and the public in
developing the preliminary draft 1990 Strategy, EPA has heard an almost
universal plea for a greatly simplified grants process for small
communities. The experience of state and local officials and others
in the field indicates that the needs of small and large communities
are usually quite different, as are their technical and managerial
resources to deal with the grants process. The general feeling has
been that many of the requirements which are appropriate for medium
to large communities are not needed for most small communities.
Examples might include intensive waste surveys, complex procurement
requirements, and the evaluation of very sophisticated treatment
processes. Many people have also felt that the paperwork required
of small communities could be greatly simplified.
24
-------
The present grants process already does provide flexibility in some
of these areas but it is not fully utilized in practice. For example, a
number of small communities are currently able to complete the grants
process in just a few years for simple projects, but for most small
communities the process takes much longer. Furthermore, widespread
experience indicates that small communities generally find themselves
complying with requirements and filling out administrative forms which
they feel are not relevant to their waste treatment and disposal
situations.
As a result, EPA is proposing, as an element of the 1990 Strategy,
that each state be encouraged to develop a simplified grant process for
small grantees. States will be encouraged to develop separate management
procedures and requirements to assist small communities and to facilitate
their compliance with program requirements. EPA will allow states
considerable flexibility in this regard and will also provide states
with tools to be used in this effort. For example, generic facilities
plans for use by small grantees will be developed. Also, EPA will
encourage funding of third party managers to assist grantees in managing
their projects. The accompanying goal of the strategy in this area is:
• By January 1983, the states electing to establish a separate grants
process for small communities will have established processes
that reduce the overall time required to complete projects by
50 percent.
Muni c i pal Self-Suffi ci ency
The ultimate success of the Construction Grants Program rests not
with the federal government, nor even with the states, but with the local
communities. It is the municipalities which bear the responsibility for
operating the treatment plants effectively, maintaining their systems in
good working order, replacing capital equipment over time, and expanding
their systems where necessary. The municipalities also have the
accompanying managerial responsibilities for hiring and supervising
qualified staff, planning and overseeing various activities, and
maintaining a sound financial position to support these activities.
Currently, grantees are required to develop financial plans which
identify how they will fund construction of a proposed facility and its
subsequent operations and maintenance. In general, however, grantees do
not develop financial or management plans aimed at meeting their
long-term needs.
The need for a sound financial position is an especially critical
point. In these times of increasing pressure to hold down government
costs, municipal sewage districts will continue to operate with tight
budgets. Yet an adequate budget is crucial for communities to
successfully carry out those local responsibilities. In that sense the
financial position of the sewage district may be the "acid test" of
whether the facilities will be operated, staffed, maintained and expanded
as necessary so that they achieve the long-run water quality objectives
for which they were constructed.
25
-------
EPA will assist POTWs to achieve self-sufficiency by allowing
funding for the development of a long-term financial and management
plan for each municipality. The purpose of this plan will be to identify
the long-term financial needs of the municipality, in terms of the
operation, maintenance, and expansion of its wastewater facilities and
the means by which those needs can be satisfied. In addition, the plan
should provide a management element to insure that any necessary expansions
or modifications are initiated in sufficient time to insure compliance with
effluent requirements.
As a result, the following goals are established in this area:
• All grantees will have developed long-term management and
financial plans prior to completion of their grant project, or
otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state that
they have adequate plans and resources to become self-sufficient
and to maintain continuous long-term compliance with effluent
requirements.
t States will be required to include in their state strategy to
meet program management goals a program to ensure that POTWs
are self-sufficient, that they remain in compliance, and that
they initiate plans for needed expansions in ample time to
maintain continuous compliance.
Management Attention on Compliance
One major thrust of the preliminary draft 1990 Strategy is to meet
the challenge that too many treatment plants are operating out of
compliance with their discharge permits. The problem is not just that
many plants are in "technical" violation of their permits, but also
the analyses that estimate 30 to 50 percent are seriously out of
compliance.
Several detailed actions are recommended later in the Compliance
section of the next chapter to focus significant management attention at
all levels of government on compliance as a major goal of the Construction
Grants Program. In order to accomplish this commitment, the Strategy
includes recommendations in three areas. One is improving the availa-
bility, use and quality of current monitoring data. That includes
expanding the concepts of "compliance" and "noncompliance" to
differentiate better between instances of serious versus minor
noncompliance. Another area of recommendations is related to assuring
the compliance of new facilities which are yet to be completed. The
third area is shaping a strong diagnostic assistance, and enforcement
program to substantially reduce the incidence of serious noncompliance
at existing facilities. A strong enforcement program will be an
important element of the 1990 Strategy for achieving compliance at
both major and minor facilities. An important long-term aspect of
this approach is also encouraging the financial self-sufficiency
of treatment works, as described above, to ensure that communities
are able to maintain their systems in good condition and operation
in the long run.
26
-------
To this end, the following goals are incorporated into the draft
1990 Strategy:
• The percentage of communities with serious noncompliance
problems will be steadily reduced in all states from the
present levels estimated to be 30 to 50 percent, to less
than 5 percent by 1990, and strong enforcement action
will be taken against those communities remaining out of
compliance.
t Each state will establish intermediate goals related to
reduction of the percentage of communities with serious
noncompliance problems, in conjunction with its state
strategy.
Innovative and Alternative Technology
The Clean Water Act includes significant emphasis on the role which
innovative and alternative technology should play in the Construction
Grants Program. Congress envisioned that innovative and alternative
technology would be significantly more cost-effective than conventional
processes in many situations, and that it could offer superior
environmental benefits, such as reducing water usage by increasing
water reuse.
The 1990 Strategy proposes not only to continue the current
innovative and alternative technologies program, but to strengthen
it in several ways.
First, innovative technology will be further encouraged through
the direct sponsorship of selected pilot projects. These will be
geared to demonstrate the technical and financial viability of emerging
innovative technologies in order to reduce the risks to localities,
and speed up acceptance.
Second, the 1990 Strategy also includes recommendations to make the
present higher funding percentage for innovative projects fully applicable
whenever over one-half of a project can be considered innovative. The
draft 1990 Strategy proposes a recommendation to Congress that a 1 percent
set aside be made permanent for innovative projects to remove present
uncertainty.
Third, EPA intends to encourage and assist states in the development
of small systems offices which will promote the use of innovative and
alternative technologies in small communities. These offices will also
disseminate technical information to these communities and their
consultants.
To emphasize this commitment to innovative and alternative
technology, the draft 1990 Strategy includes the following goal:
• Each state will be encouraged to develop specific targets
in its state strategy for the numbers of innovative and
alternative projects which it will attempt to fund throughout
the next four years.
27 .
-------
III. SPECIFIC PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACHIEVE GOALS
This chapter presents the preliminary draft 1990 Strategy's major
recommendations for changes in three basic aspects of the Construction
Grants Program. The first, the planning process, provides priorities and
the overall context for the Program. The second focuses on the
administrative elements: funding; operations of the grants process; and
activities designed to ensure compliance of facilities with their permits
The third area describes realigned management roles for federal, state,
and local governments in the revised Construction Grants Program.
The changes listed here represent only the highlights of the 1990
recommendations in each study area. This description characterizes the
major issues dealt with in each area and the key changes suggested.
Further elaboration of the issues, rationale, options, and detailed
recommendations can be found in the full Strategy Document available for
each of the five topics under separate cover.
PLANNING: CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAM
The water quality planning process has significant impacts on the
Construction Grants Program. This process is an important first step in
the construction grants process, since it provides the perspective of
problems, solutions, and results, and thereby focuses attention on the
most important water quality problems. A small investment in planning,
compared to the costs of installing and operating controls, can save
money by solving problems early.
Planning efforts become even more important when the limited funding
confronting the Construction Grants Program is considered. In this
situation, the evaluation of the attainability of water quality
standards, the need for advanced waste treatment facilities, and the
definition of minimum technology-based standards are critical.
The major areas of the planning process discussed in the 1990 effort
centered on emphasizing water quality impacts in setting project
priorities and evaluation of some water quality standards to achieve
program objectives. Each of these areas and the resulting
recommendations are discussed in the sections that follow.
Water Quality Impacts Will Receive a Greater
Emphasis in the Planning Process
Extensive discussion supporting an increased emphasis on water
quality impacts when evaluating project priorities occurred throughout
the 1990 process. However, there was also a strong feeling that 1990
recommendations should not require extensive new planning efforts. The
29
-------
changes outlined below recognize the validity of these two points as well
as the reality of limited funds and a continued commitment to minimum
technology-based standards.
1. Planning efforts under the 1990 Strategy will make maximum use
of existing data, plans, and programs but will re-direct resources to
address the most critical water quality problems. Many States and EPA
Regions have strong water quality-oriented programs which use existing
data effectively in directing their construction grants programs. Also,
the portions of the State WQM plans which deal with municipal point
sources are the most complete parts of those plans. However, despite the
amount of information available, in some States and Regions the links
between water quality data, problem assessments, plans, and actions have
been severed, making their programs less effective. EPA will work with
the States to develop overall planning and management approaches directed
toward meeting the fishable/swimmable goals and to set priorities tied to
problem assessments for WQS reviews, monitoring, waste load allocations,
nonpoint source planning, evaluation, and other activities. The States
should concentrate data gathering and analysis on streams where States
are considering extensive capital investments, such as AST/AWT plants, or
where problems (e.g., toxics) aren't clearly identified.
2. Water quality impacts will be emphasized in setting project
priorities and in developing state strategies. There are several
potential ways of emphasizing water quality impacts in implementing
a priority system. EPA could develop uniform national priority ranking
criteria based on water quality and require each state to utilize these
criteria in developing its annual construction grants priority list.
Another possible method would be to improve existing water quality
monitoring data to provide a better foundation for the establishment of
priorities. A third option would be to utilize existing water quality
management plans as the basis for priorities. All these approaches have
merit, but at the same time, they have limitations.
The recommended approach offers yet another alternative. It does
not involve the development of national uniform priority criteria.
Rather, it places responsibility on each state for developing a strategy
to meet program management goals. The state strategy will categorize all
projects within the state into one of three broad classifications of
water quality impact and will include a schedule for the eventual
completion of all POTWs within the state.
The strategy will be reviewed and approved by EPA. The state
strategy will result in a shift away from the concept of carefully
ranking the projects to receive grant funding each year and toward a
concept of scheduling project completions based on priorities and,
specifically, water quality impacts. The priority list will remain the
vehicle for determining which projects are funded in a given year, but
the list must be consistent with the schedule of POTW completions
detailed in the state strategy. Due to planning and construction time
constraints, etc., the annual fundable priority list may show projects of
lower classification with high priority. This may be necessary to get
large or complex projects started so that they can be completed on
schedule.
30
-------
Ranking projects or establishing priorities in this way is not a
departure from technology-based goals; it is a method to determine which
of the BPWTT projects to build before others. Priority rankings will be
established for all projects within the state, but those with the
greatest impact on water quality will be built first, thus insuring the
maximum environmental result from limited resources as quickly as
possible.
Another aspect of the recommended approach is that it focuses the
gathering of additional water quality data on site-specific problems
where a determination has been made that additional data will be needed
to make a rational priority or funding decision. The recommendation
recognizes that existing data will be adequate for decisions on most
projects but not on all. It provides for additional data collection and
analyses only where needed, and allows other projects to proceed through
the grants process without delay. Thus, the strategy will be used as a
management tool to prioritize standards evaluations, waste load
allocations, and additional water monitoring data needs, as well as
assisting in scheduling the various project phases of the construction
grants process. The strategy will also indicate to communities the long
range likelihood of federal funding for their local projects and assist
them in decisions to develop alternative funding options.
The specific aspects of the recommended approach for implementing a
priority system which emphasizes water quality impacts are listed below:
t In the state strategy, states will identify all projects or
parts of projects that are necessary to comply with the water
quality and BPWTT objectives described in Chapter II and
classify each project as follows:
—Necessary for achievement of, or significant progress toward,
fishable/swimmable waters, protection of outstanding natural
resource waters, or protection of public health.
--Necessary only to meet minimum treatment standards (i.e.,
BPWTT}.
--Not necessary to meet the enforceable requirements of the
Act.
The state strategies should also set forth in broad terms the
methods that the state will use to meet the program objectives.
For example, the state may plan to lower the federal share of
eligible project costs, eliminate some eligibilities or
implement a state loan program in order to support more
projects, or it may plan to review attainability on certain
critical stream segments (e.g., those covered by blanket
standards or where AWT projects are planned). Methods such as
these should be enumerated in the strategy. The state strategy
is not meant to be an elaborate or voluminous report requiring
extensive new analyses. It should be straightforward and
concise based on available data, professional judgment, and,
infrequently, on new analyses.
31
-------
• In the state strategy, states will Include a master schedule
for all projects in the first two categories above, which would
complete the Construction Grants Program. The strategy will
also include schedules for completion of projects categorized
as not necessary to meet the enforceable requirements of the
Act. Consideration by the states of these lowest priority
projects (which may not receive federal funding) is necessary
because the states must manage the complete municipal
wastewater treatment program, not just those projects funded by
federal grants. The schedules will be based on national funding
levels. The strategy will be continually updated as additional
progress is made toward program goals. States will also develop
strategies for program completion under the assumption that
annual funding is not constrained.
States will place the time schedules derived above in the NPDES
permits for each project. This schedule will thus become an
enforceable element of the permit. The schedule will also
become a condition of the grant thus obligating those involved
to hold to the schedule. Time schedules for major dischargers
will be tracked through MMS.
States will administer the Construction Grants Program to maintain
the master schedule designed to achieve program objectives. The annual
state priority list should be consistent with this schedule and the state
should closely track projects to maintain them on schedule. The state
will be evaluated on its performance against its plan in annual reviews
with EPA (see Management Recommendations for details).
3. Nonpoint source and industrial point source pollution must be
evaluated when assessing the priority of a project. Meeting the goals of
fishable and swimmable waters involves much more than just the
construction of POTWs--nonpoint sources and industrial point sources can
affect the attainability of water quality standards. The existence or
likelihood of significant progress in these areas must be considered when
evaluating the priority of a municipal discharge project. Many site-
specific problems involve tradeoffs among these sources. The compliance
efforts of industrial point sources are relatively far along (they must
meet a 1984 BAT goal); nonpoint source control efforts, on the other
hand, are not as far along.
Efforts dealing with the issue of nonpoint source control include
the continuing national EPA effort that focuses on building a technical
base of knowledge appropriate for support of state planning in the
nonpoint source area (through the present Water Quality Management
Strategy and outside the 1990 effort). In addition, the facility
planning process will be expanded where necessary, to include an
evaluation of the tradeoffs between different pollutant sources as they
32
-------
affect municipal discharge requirements for advanced wastewater treatment
systems. Where complex analyses are required, they will generally be
performed i/-"^" other funding programs.
4. iTient water quality emphasis by improving fiscal, financial,
and instit i'ona7 aspects of planning. The abilities of communities,
counties, ^e states to fully implement the plans and realize their
goals de1 '-^'cantly on fiscal, financial, and institutional
factor? « often given little attention, while major effort
is di> i-cal aspects such as water quality monitoring and
eval- ''ant specification.
-------
standards and the determination of attainability. States should include
attainability determinations in the present required cycle relating to
review and revision of water quality standards.
2. Modify the technical definition of "secondary treatment" to
allow other biological treatments such as trickling filters where they
are suitable^ The current definition of secondary treatment requires the
I) of highly efficient and often costly and complex treatment
pities that have an existing form
5 not quite
-------
affect municipal discharge requirements for advanced wastewater treatment
systems. Where complex analyses are required, they will generally be
performed under other funding programs.
4. Augment water quality emphasis by improving fiscal, financial,
and institutional aspects of planning. The abilities of communities,
counties, and the states to fully implement the plans and realize their
goals depend significantly on fiscal, financial, and institutional
factors. Yet these are often given little attention, while major effort
is directed toward technical aspects such as water quality monitoring and
evaluation and treatment plant specification.
The states should focus on the problems and capabilities of their
local management agencies, especially for capital budgeting and long-
term operation and maintenance of septic systems, POTWs, sewers, and
nonpoint source controls. This municipal self-sufficiency is necessary
to long-term success of the program and is also discussed under the
Compliance Recommendations. In addition, where economic reasons are a
major barrier in attaining standards, the state should examine options
for innovative financing or such ideas as a change in the service area to
improve financing capability or to reduce per capita cost impacts.
Selected Revisions of Standards
for Achievement of Water Quality
Objectives
Four efforts in the standards area are recommended.. These changes
provide the flexibility needed at the local level to achieve water
quality goals in a timely and cost-effective manner. Each is discussed
in detail in the following paragraphs.
1. Emphasize the "attainability" of water quality standards.
While the law establishes an interim goal of achieving fishable/swimmable
waters where attainable, EPA and the states have not given much
consideration to the concept of "attainability" in the development of
water quality standards or in the establishment of construction grants
priorities. In several states, many streams were classified for uses
which are simply not attainable, often due to natural background
conditions or a lack of adequate treatment technology. As a result, some
advanced waste treatment projects which will not significantly impact
water quality have been given priority and been funded. The
reassessments of stream uses are necessary to avoid building costly AWT
or CSO systems that will not impact water quality. It is recommended
that these reassessments be based on the Water Quality Standards Strategy
which EPA developed and circulated extensively for public comment several
months ago.
The preliminary draft proposes emphasizing the concept of
attainability in the development or reevaluation of water quality
standards. To assist states in evaluating attainability as they develop
and update water quality standards, EPA will prepare guidance for the
states. This guidance will deal with the technical, environmental, and
economic factors that should be considered in the development of
33
-------
standards and the determination of attainability. States should include
attainability determinations in the present required cycle relating to
review and revision of water quality standards.
2. Modify the technical definition of "secondary treatment" to
allow other biological treatments such as trickling filters where they
are suitable. The current definition of secondary treatment requires the
construction of highly efficient and often costly and complex treatment
processes. There are a number of communities that have an existing form
of biological treatment, such as a trickling filter, which does not quite
meet the current definition of secondary treatment. Many of these
existing facilities are also simpler and less costly to operate than the
more efficient forms of secondary treatment. The question arises as to
whether EPA should allow a lower level of secondary treatment than
acceptable under the current definition if it can be demonstrated that a
lower level of secondary treatment will not adversely affect water
quality.
EPA has examined this issue and has concluded that a lower level of
secondary treatment would, in many cases, result in considerable cost
savings both nationally and locally without adversely affecting water
quality. EPA has also evaluated two different approaches for allowing a
lower level of secondary treatment. The alternatives evaluated include
allowing a case-by-case waiver similar to the approach allowed for
discharges to deep ocean waters and establishing a second, lower level of
secondary treatment to be allowed under certain circumstances.
As a result of these analyses, EPA will soon open the issue of the
definition of secondary treatment to public consideration, through an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The definition could possibly be
broadened to take into account local factors, presense or absence of
toxic pollutants, and treatment works performance requirements. EPA
would maintain a technology-based requirement of biological treatment,
while attempting to trim the costs of "treatment for treatment's sake."
3. Develop a strategy for controlling pollution from combined
sewer overflows and urban storm runoff. The problems of combined sewer
overflows (CSO) and urban storm runoff (USR) are accompanied by great
uncertainty regarding their severity and control. The solutions to these
problems involve the difficult task of accounting for high-flow (i.e, wet
weather) conditions in setting water quality standards and writing and
enforcing NPDES permits. EPA will work with the States and local
agencies to develop a CSO and USR control strategy by the end of FY 83
and continue to build its data base on problems and controls.
4. Phase toxics criteria into water quality standards. While
concern about toxics has grown considerably over the past several years,
many unknowns exist regarding their pathways, fates, and environmental
effects. In addition, toxics monitoring is extremely expensive. Strong
tools, however, are available for assessing conventional pollutant
treatment impacts. Because of this, EPA proposes that states continue to
focus efforts on conventional pollutants over the near term, but
gradually phase toxics into water quality standards and effluent
requirements as information providing the basis to do so becomes
available.
34
-------
Some tools and information do exist for assessing toxics problems.
These should be used in areas where toxics are a significant issue and
where the impact on toxics control should be considered in determining
project priorities. As a result, some POTWs that would receive low
priority on the basis of conventional pollutant control impacts would
receive high priority upon consideration of toxic pollutant control
impacts. Furthermore, recent sampling and analysis have shown that
secondary treatment can provide effective removal of some toxic
pollutants. Therefore, the continued application of technology based
standards requiring secondary treatment to meet the BPWTT goal will also
contribute significantly to eliminating toxics.
EPA has developed ambient criteria for some toxic pollutants and
will define the state of the art in toxics control. In addition, EPA
will issue effluent guidelines covering toxic pollutants. States should
incorporate toxics into state standards and monitoring programs as
information becomes available from EPA.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM
Three of the major areas addressed in the 1990 Strategy development
process deal with administrative aspects of the program. Those three
are described in the sections which follow and include funding,
operations of the grants process, and the activities related to ensuring
compliance of POTWs with their permits.
Funding
The $119 billion preliminary estimate of needs from the 1980 Needs
Survey is much greater than the funding likely to be authorized and
appropriated by Congress by 1990. In light of that fact, it is crucial
that projects be selected strategically to achieve further progress
toward the goals of the Act. Moreover, funding mechanisms and
eligibilities should also reinforce the objectives of the program.
EPA deems it inappropriate to include in the present draft
strategy specific recommendations related to funding, since the
new administration will almost immediately be addressing program
funding in light of current national economic conditions. The
Funding Strategy staff paper (Task I of the draft 1990 Stategy)
which discusses specific recommendations and their implications
for the program, is available for review and comment. Essentially,
those recommendations are that: (1) while basic funding mechanisms
should not be altered substantially, states should be strongly
encouraged to implement measures such as state loan programs and
reduction of the federal share to maximize the benefits from federal
funds; and (2) priorities for project funding should be based on
potential water quality impacts as well as requirements for secondary
treatment.
35
-------
Because one of the objectives in developing the 1990 strategy
has been to identify all ways in which the Construction Grants
Program could be made more effective, many of the recommendations in
other areas of the preliminary draft could result in reducing
the estimates for federal funds needed to complete the program.
The chart below outlines the potential impacts of those recommendations
on the needs reported in the 1980 Needs Survey.
Table III-I
COST IMPACT OF MODIFICATIONS ON 1980 NEEDS CATEGORY ESTIMATES
CATEGORY
I. Secondary
Treatment
1980 NEEDS*
(billions)
$ 28.8
il. Advanced
Treatment
IIIA. I/I
$ 5.6
$ 2.5
HIB. Rehabil- $ 5.6
nation
IVA. Collectors $ 18.4
IVB. Interceptors $ 20.8
V. CSO (Recrea- $ 36.5
tlonal Uses)
(Fish & $ 23.0
Wildlife)
*Preliminary estimates
COST IMPACTS OF
MODIFICATIONS
Could be reduced by $840 million
to $4.6 billion over a ten-year
period by including trickling
filters In definition of second-
ary; further reductions possible
if other processes included; use
of Industrial Cost Exclusion
(ICE) could save $5.9 billion
in Categories I and II.
Could be reduced by attainability
reviews.
Could be reduced by modifying
cost-benefit evaluations.
Could be reduced by restrictive
definitions of eligible projects
Could be further reduced as full
effect of PRM 78-9 restricting
collectors is felt. Could also be
reduced by greater use of alter-
native systems.
Could be reduced by restricting
eligible projects to those neede
for integrity of entire system;
use of ICE could save $1 billion
Could be reduced by focus on
attainable uses.
Change to this water quality
objective could save
approximately 13.5 billion.
-------
Operations—An Efficient and Effective Grants Program
The Construction Grants process includes a complex set of
requirements relating to planning, design, and construction that
currently takes from seven to eleven years to complete for a moderately
sized plant. Besides the preparation of applications for each Step,
there are multiple reviews throughout the process and requirements to
comply with over 50 other federal laws in completing the process.
The grants program is generally one of the largest financial and
administrative programs that many municipalities, especially small ones,
will ever undertake. While the program is divided into only three main
Steps, each Step has a significant number of requirements which can be
complex and time-consuming. For example, in Step 1 (Planning) grantees
are required to analyze innovative and alternative treatment processes
and techniques that reclaim and reuse wastewater, evaluate potential
opportunities for recreation, open space and access to bodies of water,
and conduct an assessment of the primary energy requirements for each
considered treatment system. All of this is in addition to meeting basic
technical and economic requirements and waiting for the state and EPA to
review the facilities plan. Clearly, there is a plethora of activities
and actions required of grantees. Step 2 is also complex because a
complete plant design plan must be developed and approved (by the state
and/or EPA). Step 3 involves actual construction of the POTW and the
time needed here can be significant depending on the type of facility
being constructed.
The grants process is long and involved and few municipalities have
had experience which is directly relevant to helping them through it.
Nearly every evaluation of the Construction Grants Program has identified
similar issues as problems for grantees. To summarize these issues, the
complexity of the grants process, the changing of regulations while
grantees are in the process, and the length of time required to complete
it all- reduce the program's potential effectiveness. These problems are
compounded by the fact that despite the program's reviews, plants coming
on line are not consistently in compliance.
Many small systems share other types of problems in their dealings
with the construction grants process, such as a lack of management
resources, a lack of financial planning, and use of accounting systems
that differ from those required by EPA. The current grants process, with
its significant time delays and increased costs, has caused financial
problems for small municipalities which, typically, are the least able to
afford such costs.
The issues described above cover the broad areas of shortening the
process time, lightening the administrative load, and improving or
maintaining project quality (building POTWs that meet NPDES requirements)
in the grants process. Discussions have led to a wide variety of
suggested actions. These include optimizing the present grants process,
altering the process to eliminate duplicative requirements, and the use
of generic plans to expedite the facility planning process for small
communities.
37
-------
EPA has formulated a series of recommendations to address many of
the problems discussed above. In general, EPA will simplify the grants
process by Devaluating the current process to reduce the administrative
burden and time needed for grantees to complete it. In addition, full
delegation of the grants program will aid in eliminating some problems
such as duplicative reviews. The combination of these actions will
substantially reduce the process time (by at least 25 percent), simplify
the administrative process, and maintain the quality of facilities. Some
specific actions which will be taken are:
1. The time needed to move through the grants process will be
reduced by at least 25 percent. Full delegation of the grants program
will aid in eliminating many time-consuming duplicative state and EPA
reviews. EPA will develop aids and recommend procedures that will reduce
the time in the grants process. These tools will then be made available
for use by the states.
Types of time-saving measures will include development of model
Critical Path Method (CPM) charts, such as ones produced by the state of
California, which offer broadly applicable optimization techniques for
concurrent processing of several grants requirements. Other tracking
methods which will help keep projects moving efficiently through the
process will also be developed and made available to states by EPA. In
addition, EPA will continue its efforts in the area of critical path
analysis of the grants process to determine the areas where regulatory or
legislative changes might have the greatest impact on the time involved
in the process.
As an added measure to reduce the time required in the grants
process, states and grantees will be encouraged to develop contracted
time schedules as part of the application for each of the three steps in
the grants process. In this way the mutually agreed-upon schedule will
provide a realistic time target to which both parties will adhere.
2. The grants process will be simplified and streamlined. EPA
will take several steps to simplify and streamline the grants process
thereby easing the administrative, technical, and management requirements
and burden on grantees.
• Simplification of A/E procurement regulations through
conformance with OMB Attachment 0, continuing inter-agency
review of Attachement 0, issuing bid qualifications procedures
and issuing flexible guidelines for reasonable profits.
• Simplification of the eligibility of grantees' administrative,
legal, and fiscal costs by amending regulations to allow an
option for lump sum payment for those costs based on cost
curves developed from examination of typical historical cost
levels.
• Revision of the regulations to remove unnecessarily
prescriptive requirements and replace them with responsiblity
for the states to ensure that the functions are carried out
properly. This will be carried out in connection with full
delegation and will be designed to provide states maximum
flexibility in implementing the program as efficiently as
possible.
38
-------
• Implementation of certification. Ongoing pilot certification
projects will be used to provide future guidance for regional,
state, and grantee personnel. Qualified grantees, having a
history of successful administration of construction grants,
will be certified by the states to proceed with many activities
in the process without further state review.
• Request legislative changes needed to modify current procedures
to allow grantees to proceed with design prior to formal
approval of the Facilities Plan. Eligible costs incurred would
be reimbursed at the time the Step 2 grant is awarded.
t Examination of the consolidation of procedures for complying
with other applicable federal requirements. EPA, acknowledging
the need for consolidation of the requirements for compliance
with the more than 50 federal requirements impacting
construction grants projects, will work with other federal
agencies to determine the feasibility of consolidating some of
these requirements and will cooperate in pursuing any
legislative changes needed for effective implementation.
• Special consideration of NEPA. The requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), because of their
integral relation to EPA's environmental objectives, will
receive special attention regarding delegation. A process for
allowing full delegation of EPA's NEPA responsibilities will be
developed consistent with the need to acknowledge that certain
projects due to special environmental, international, or
interstate concerns, are of particular federal concern, require
federal assistance to assure program integrity and achievement
of EPA's national environmental objective.
3. The grants process will be greatly simplified for small
grantees. Many small, rural communities have similar background
conditions and constraints in such areas as suitability for on-lot
disposal, demographic characteristics, and quality of existing
facilities. An abbreviated planning process and set of generic facility
plans is being developed by EPA for use by the states to greatly simplify
the Step 1 facility-planning process for communities of less than 10,000.
This will ensure that all requirements can be met by small grantees
without undue complexity. These communities will be screened and all,
except those communities which the states feel have special
complications, will be able to use the simplified process and generic
plans for their own facilities. The generic plans will be a means of
taking advantage of these common conditions by offering cost-effective,
appropriate solutions for small communities developing facility plans.
EPA and states choosing to do so will modify the program to assist
small communities with the administration of the revised grants process.
This will take the form of funding third-party management. Third-party
management will offer communities the option of using state or private
consultants to aid them through the grants process. This will expedite
the application process and help to ensure that communities build
functional plants suited to their needs. Other actions will also be
taken to aid facilities, such as encouraging preapplication conferences
and intermediate state reviews to help ensure that small systems are "on
target" with their plans and understand what to expect throughout the
steps of the process.
39
-------
4. The Agency will continue to clarify policy guidance in areas
having significant effects on the grants process. These areas include
infiltration/inflow problems, innovative and alternative projects, and
integrated waste management. EPA will modify the infiltration/inflow
(I/I) program to make it more cost effective and accurate and to reduce
the time needed to complete it. The agency will also encourage states to
assist applicants in the development of effective sewer maintenance
programs in conjunction with planning and designing wastewater treatment
projects.
Legislative changes to the innovative and alternative (I/A) program
will be recommended by the Agency in order to encourage greater use of
innovative technology. The strategy recommends confining the use of
set-aside funds to innovative projects but continuing to fund both
innovative and alternative at a higher rate than conventional projects.
There are also recommendations to simplify administration of the funding.
The set-aside would be a mandatory minimum level of one percent with a
national pool established to which unobligated set-aside monies (not to
exceed one percent) would revert.
In light of the recent burgeoning of waste disposal problems being
faced by public officials at all levels of government, EPA is developing
a new and more comprehensive multi-media/multi-waste approach to those
problems. Integrated Waste Management, the umbrella term being used to
describe this approach, involves agency initiatives and pilot projects in
a variety of areas. Of particular concern in this area to the 1990
Strategy are the problems being faced by present and future operators of
POTWs. Treatment of greater volumes of wastewater at higher levels is
producing greatly increased volumes of sludge for which beneficial or
acceptable disposal methods must be found. At the same time the options
available for sludge disposal are being severely curtailed by
restrictions on incineration and ocean dumping, the presence of toxics in
sludge and the public concern with sitting issues. The pretreatment
program is designed to solve major parts of this problem by removing
toxics from sludge so that it can be used beneficially in such ways as
soil reclamation. The mandated development of local pretreatment
programs is being funded through the construction grants program as are
several pilot projects intended to demonstrate the feasibility of an
integrated approach to local waste management problems. These activities
are described in more detail in the Operations Strategy.
Compliance--The Integrity of the Program
The present level of performance of grant-funded POTWs is not
satisfactory. Numerous studies of municipal wastewater treatment plants
throughout the country have estimated that 30 to 50 percent of existing
facilities may be seriously out of compliance for several months a year.
POTWs represent a major public investment of public funds in
pollution abatement that is not producing the anticipated results.
Making sure the plants and other facilities funded under the Construction
Grants Program work as they were designed to work—that they are in
compliance--is critical to achieving the objectives of the Act. Unless
facilities funded through this program are operating in compliance with
40
-------
requirements, the public funds expended for this program will not have
accomplished their intended purpose—to clean up the nation's waters.
EPA's proposed strategy to bring existing POTWs into compliance and
to ensure that future facilities are in compliance will contain three
elements. First, the major thrust of the compliance program will be an
aggressive enforcement effort. The existence of violations of the
technology-based requirements of the Clean Water Act will indicate the
need for potential enforcement actions. Facilities which are in serious
noncompliance, and especially those which are recalcitrant in their
efforts to comply with the Act, will be targeted for strict enforcement.
Second, the management of POTW compliance data will be improved to
better determine the significance of compliance violations. This
information will provide additional input to ongoing enforcement actions.
The information will also aid in funneling advisory and direct assistance
to facilities which have the worst problems.
Third, the preliminary compliance strategy encourages the concept of
municipal self-sufficiency for operating and maintaining POTWs. The
enforcement program and data systems have as their ultimate aim
municipalities taking full responsibility for meeting NPDES requirements
on a consistent basis, as required by the Clean Water Act. As can be
seen in the discussion below, states will be the primary vehicles for
direct interface with POTWs in the areas of technical assistance and
assuring long-term municipal self-sufficiency. EPA will offer guidance
at a national level and maintain an aggressive enforcement program in
conjunction with those states which have been delegated authority to
manage the NPDES program within their jurisdiction.
Compliance Data
In order to make better evaluations of the significance of
noncompliance or the means to bring about a return to compliance, there
must be better coordination of compliance data that is currently
available. Information obtained from self-monitoring reports, compliance
inspection Reports, Quarterly Noncompliance Report, 0 & M Reports, Grants
and Needs Reports, and other compliance-monitoring studies must be
processed more rapidly and communicated more accurately. Greater use of
this information should be made during compliance evaluations and
enforcement follow-up. In order to facilitate the use of this
information, the Agency will emphasize and support the following
efforts:
1. A common database of compliance and grant information designed
around the specific needs of the Agency and the states will be developed.
The basic data elements of such an information pool are outlined in the
Municipal Management System (MMS) guidance document. The data currently
maintained in various permit and grant systems can be integrated using
the NEEDS cross-reference index. This capability exists and is available
to all users. This database is to be augmented by information from state
pollution control agencies as determined in Agency/State MMS working
41
-------
agreements. Under MMS operating procedures, the exact types of
compliance data necessary to coordinate the evaluation of and return to
compliance will be identified as to their priority and recipient. The
Agency will continue with its efforts to develop and bring on line an
automated violation detection system (PCS-II) so that self-monitoring
information can be rapidly processed and supplied to the common database.
This will enable State agencies to monitor trends and degrees of
noncompliance more accurately. It will also make it easier for the
agency to measure the effectiveness of various types of responses. Based
on State/EPA agreements, certain types of compliance inspection
information will also be supplied to the data base. The intent is to use
the vast amount of such information already available.
2. Means to assess compliance-monitoring information more rapidly
and to provide continuous quality assurance of the data will be
established.The Agency has initiated the DMR Quality Assurance Program
specifically to address the quality of DMR data and provide follow-up
compliance inspections where problems are detected. In addition, EPA has
developed a quality control inspection procedure. This will be used to
assess a permittee's sampling and analytical work and to upgrade
performance where necessary. Corrective measures can be supplied to the
permittee immediately along with copies to the State agency serving the
POTW. These efforts, in conjunction with PCS II, will lead to higher
quality monitoring data. This will also make permit limits and
self-reported data more accessible to EPA and State users who must manage
the return to compliance. EPA and State permit and enforcement
authorities will use this information in the developoment of MMS
procedures which streamline traditional compliance-review activities
across interdependent programs. Compliance data necessary to assess
discharge performance or plant operation will be produce more rapidly,
achieve wider distribution, and be prepared in a more reviewable format.
MMS operating procedures will insure expeditious handling and follow-up.
Compliance for Future Facilities
It is expected that the entire compliance program will help to
ensure the integrity not only of existing POTWs but also of future
facilities. As lessons are learned from close examination of the
compliance problems of existing POTWs, appropriate changes will be
incorporated in the planning, design, and construction of new facilities.
Over time, as current problems are corrected and plants are brought into
compliance, steps will be taken to prevent compliance problems in the
future.
The actions which EPA is proposing to ensure the integrity of future
facilities can be summarized as the following elements:
• Refinement in characterization of influent.
• Extension of the start-up program.
• Use of a systems approach in the grants program.
42
-------
• Addressing the problems of high flow conditions.
In addition to these measures, the implementation of pretreatment
programs already required will assist in ensuring compliance at plants
affected by industrial wastes. One of the major causes of noncompliance
at some plants is that the actual influent is not consistent with that
for which the plant was designed, and part of that problem often stems
from industrial sources. This can interfere with a plant's operation,
including reuse, recycling or disposal of sludges. Effective
implementation of the pretreatment program will, by itself, make POTWs
easier to operate and more reliable.
The following recommendations describe tools which will be made
available to states as mechanisms to help ensure a high rate of
compliance for future facilities. They are:
1. Municipalities will be encouraged to more thoroughly evaluate
the characteristics of their influent to ensure that treatment facilities
are matched to the influents and properly sized to accommodate the volume
flow. This will obviate many influent and treatment design problems.
More specifically, grantees will be encouraged to increase analyses and
influent monitoring in Step 1 and Step 2. There will be an emphasis on
reliability and operability by focusing on the importance of considering
influent constituents and volume flow in the design of POTWs.
2. The start-up program will be extended to ensure that POTWs are
able to meet NPDES specifications prior to local municipalities assuming
full responsibility for their operation.EPA's intent will be to ensure
the operability of POTWs such that they will be in compliance before they
come into service. The concern about operability at start-up will
include examination of staffing, training of personnel, and initiating
operations to provide grantees with a stable, competent operating
organization. More specifically, this will include examination of items
such as: plant specific training manuals, preventive maintenance
programs, training programs for operations and maintenance personnel, and
review of the adequacy of user change rates. In cases where it is clear
that a POTW will not meet NPDES requirements, the project will not be
closed out until corrective actions have been taken. While it is not the
intent of EPA to fund necessary corrective steps, in exceptional cases,
where it is apparent that a POTW will not be capable of achieving
compliance at design loading and is in need of additional funding to
expedite corrective action, some limited funding may be considered.
However, it is expected that in the vast majority of cases, corrective
action for start-up will be a local responsibility.
3. A systems approach will be encouraged in the Construction
Grants Process. In order to provide a smooth and orderly transition
through the planning, design, construction, and start-up of a POTW and
service, use of a project manager will be encouraged. The manager will
be an agent of the grantees, most probably a private contractor, whose
job it will be to direct and coordinate the activities of all
participants through the three Steps of the Construction Grants Program.
The manager will take administrative oversight responsibility so that
potential compliance problems, which might otherwise remain unseen due to
43
-------
the complexity of the grants process, will be quickly identified and
addressed by the municipalities. In this way the managers will aid in
the prevention of POTWs coming into service that have compliance problems
from their first day of operation.
4. EPA wi11 exami ne and recommend methods to prevent noncompli ance
due to high flow condition's^High flow conditions, especially during wet
weather, can cause considerable problems for POTWs in their ability to
treat the additional volume of water, thereby causing the facility to be
out of compliance. A significant effort in reducing high flow volume
conditions will be undertaken through modification of the infiltration/
inflow (I/I) program. Excessive I/I is a well-documented, serious
compliance problem for some POTWs and the current I/I program has not
been effective in controlling the resulting problems.
Types of actions which are being examined include:
t Allowing funding and development of an acceptable sewer
maintenance program as part of the Step 1 process, and
t Initiation of a joint effort with offices within EPA (OWPO and
ORD) to develop new approaches and technical procedures for
I/I.
Over time, as the I/I program is reviewed and amended, interim
guidelines will be issued by EPA as a bridge between the current and a
revised program. Final I/I guidelines will be developed using several
avenues to collect information, such as public participation and
initiation of a program to further evaluate the effectiveness of both the
technical and administrative aspects of the I/I program.
The outcome of these efforts will be the development of final
guidance for I/I which will be comprehensive in nature covering areas
such as: technical change, funding, and enforcement.
Compliance at Existing Facilities
Improvement of compliance rates in existing facilities is
necessarily a complex and time-consuming process. No one individual
action will be sufficient to bring all noncomplying POTWs into
compliance. Therefore, EPA will institute a compliance strategy for
existing POTWs which comprises three principle elements:
• Identifying solutions to compliance problems through diagnostic
analyses
* Developing a technical assistance program for use where needed
• Developing an aggressive enforcement program.
Each element is examined below.
44
-------
1. Diagnostics will be utilized where states feel they are
appropriate to determine problems causing noncompliance!The
lilterrelationship of the many facets of operating a POTW indicates
a need for a.comprehensive diagnostics program for some facilities
which are out of compliance. Diagnostics will include examination
of plants' design characteristics, influent constituents, management
systems, financial condition, and operating and maintenance activities.
Depending upon individual circumstances, diagnostic reviews could
be performed by qualified private-sector firms, state personnel, or other
qualified groups. Since diagnostics will be a vital component of
determining the types of compliance problems facing certain POTWs,
they will be 201 funding eligible with each state deciding which specific
POTWs will require diagnostics. Details of the mechanism for funding
diagnostics will have to be worked out, since the diagnostics must be
completed on a more expedited schedule than the regular grant process would
allow.
A POTW as a complex system witti any number of potential problem
areas. As a result, Lhe diagnostic analysis may occur on any level of
detail as required by the particular circumstances. In many cases, the
causes of noncompl iance will be readily apparent and only a very limited
diagnostic review will be performed. These facilities will then
immediately commence with corrective actions. However, for facilities
with more complex compliance problems, a full, comprehensive diagnostic
analysis might be appropriate. For example, in a complex situation, as a
first step, a POTW's operating procedures and design would be reviewed.
Areas examined in detail to determine a possible relationship with
noncompl iance would include the compatibility of the design with influent
conditions, operator training and level of skill, operating procedures
for dealing with changing influent conditions, and maintenance
procedures. Identification of the primary causes of noncompliance would
be followed by an examination of management and financial procedures that
may have contributed to noncompliance. Areas such as adequacy of user
charges and maintenance expenses would also be examined.
The diagnostics will set forth the changes needed in all areas to
achieve compliance. In order to make full use of the findings from
diagnostics, a composite correction program (CCP) will also be developed
which identifies deficiencies contributing to noncompliance. Facilities
will then make necessary agreements with states to take the appropriate
steps necessary to rectify the problems detailed in the CCPs. These
plans will be enforceable agreements committing communities to specific
actions and dates.
The need to address the complex interrelationships of a plant's
operations and financial states can be highlighted through an example: a
rate structure that is inadequate to cover operating and maintenance
costs could lead to the hiring of a skeletal staff of plant operators
with limited experience. That staff might not be able to adequately
respond to changes in influent conditions, which could adversely affect a
plant's operations, putting it out of compliance. This emphasizes the
the need for a comprehensive approach to diagnostics.
2. Technical assistance will be offered by states in accordance
with the needs specified in the CCPs. Technical assistance could take
many forms, depending on the individual needs of a facility as detailed
45
-------
in the CCPs. Specific types of assistance will be determined through
discussions between states and municipalities. However, some categories
of assistance which will be offered will include:
• General — such as,, tracking of equipment failures leading to
published reliability analyses for use by grantees,
• Financial—such as, aid in establishing user charge systems
which will provide adequate revenue to ensure the financial
integrity of the facility,
• Technical and operational—such as, advanced operator training
programs to familiarize operators with the full capability of
equipment and treatment systems, and
• Management—such as, aiding facilities in determination of the
appropriate staffing levels for technical and nontechnical
personnel.
In addition to direct technical assistance offered by states for use
in meeting CCPs, EPA will encourage facilities to use innovative
management techniques such as:
• "Circuit rider" programs—Groups of communities will hire
experts to assist in specific elements of the grants process
such as planning, design and construction, and operation. In
this way, several communities will share the cost and benefits
of one group of experts.
• Financial Guidance Documents--Issued and compiled by EPA, these
will contain typical financial data to be used as benchmarks by
local systems and states.
• Model Financial Management Systems—These documents would
describe typical information systems that local systems can use
as models in establishing their own financial management
systems.
In very special cases, the Construction Grants Program may even
provide some limited funding of capital-related needs. This will be a
"fast track" mechanism for the exceptional case which the Agency believes
requires expeditious action based on recommendations in the CCP.
Eligibility for this type of funding will be determined on a case-by-case
basis. However, it will be extremely limited and, for example, will not
be available for correcting noncompliance caused by deficient operations,
new industrial flows, or capacity expansion.
3. Implementation of CCPs will be the objective of aggressive
enforcement action by states and EPA. Since CCPs contain specific
activities necessary to bring individual noncomplying municipalities into
compliance along with a timetable for such activities, they are the
logical basis for enforcement action. Communities which are recalcitrant
in their efforts to achieve compliance will face serious consequences
including court action, sewer bans, compulsory third-party management,
46
-------
and absorption of inflated costs of necessary construction due to serious
delays by POTWs in implementing CCPs. In order to implement a
comprehensive enforcement program, EPA will request from Congress
additional authority to issue administrative orders imposing sewer bans
and other sanctions in the cases of recalcitrant, non-performing
communities. This authority will be utilized in serious cases of
recalcitrant communities. In addition, industrial dischargers to POTWs
will also face strong enforcement action if they fail to resolutely
implement agreed-to pretreatment programs. In this way both
municipalities operating POTWs and industrial dischargers to POTWs will
have strong and explicit incentives to cooperatively and expeditiously
bring facilities into compliance. A result of this type of enforcement
program will be a broadening of the scope of the Municipal Management
System whereby environmental concerns and not only the size of the
facility will be the focus of enforcement efforts. This more
comprehensive enforcement coverage will help to ensure the success of a
national effort to raise compliance rates for all sized facilities.
MANAGEMENT—ROLES IN PROGRAM MANAGEMENT: FEDERAL, STATE. AND LOCAL
The preliminary draft 1990 Management Strategy proposes a
significant departure from the current management plan. It present a new
perspective for the Agency and the delegated states, as each assumes new
responsibilities. The Strategy responds to the already changing nature
of program management (i.e., delegation), and the movement toward state
management of the program. At the same time, it responds to the need to
protect national interests and ensure that national objectives are met
through systematic monitoring of state program performance. The Strategy
represents a realistic image of this changing nature in the program and
of EPA's role in managing the transition while ensuring that national
goals are satisfied.
The preliminary draft 1990 Strategy proposes major changes in the
range of activities delegated to states and in the federal role
anticipated after delegation. The state will take over the day-to-day
operational concerns of the program while EPA will concentrate its
efforts on the oversight of state performance and on technical
development (e.g., training, R&D). States will be held accountable for
the achievement of national program objectives and for the maintenance of
program integrity and will have a role in policy development at the
national level. In posing these changes, EPA recognizes that the system
will be improved, but not perfected.
The strategy proposes a more comprehensive form of delegation than
is now in effect. It also proposes an oversight role that is keyed to
state performance based on program objectives rather than the present
procedure-oriented review. Additional changes to technical assistance
are also warranted to support the management and technical needs of state
staff.
47
-------
The major element of discussion in the management area has centered
on the state and federal roles under delegation. The resulting
reconmendations are detailed in the sections that follow.
The State Will Be the Primary Local Program Manager
The key issue here concerns the appropriate role of a federal agency
in meeting national program objectives. Under the current concept of
delegation, EPA transfers the responsibility for certain project-level
processing activities to the states but retains responsibility for a
number of project-level decisions, such as the environmental sign-off on
projects, the issuance of grant awards, the processing of bid protests,
payments and other activities. The proposed roles in the 1990 strategy
transfer virtually all these responsibilities to the states.
There are three key recommendations in this area.
1. Delegation to the states will be comprehensive and expedited.
Under this concept, delegated states will be responsible for managing
individual grant projects and for managing the grants program within
their states. The states will be given considerable flexibilty in terms
of how they choose to administer the program, and will be held
accountable for the achievement of the program objectives identified in
Chapter II. EPA will delegate all operational responsibilities related
to individual projects, including bid protest resolution, minority
business enterprises, National Environmental Policy Act determinations
and actions, final resolution of audit exceptions, and other currently
nondelegable activities. In addition, EPA will delegate grant offers,
payments, and other fiscal responsibilities that have been traditionally
the responsibility of the federal government. States accepting
delegation will have to accept responsibilities for all activities.
Partial delegation will not be possible. EPA's goal is to have signed
delegation agreements with all states by 1983 and full delegation in all
states by 1985.
EPA also has a continuing responsibility to assure that
environmental integrity is an integral part of the delegated program. In
order to fulfill this responsibility, EPA must retain the flexibility
necessary to provide assistance to these states on a project-specific
basis when appropriate to assure attainment of our national objectives.
EPA will develop specific guidelines with state participation for EPA's
involvement in projects. It is anticipated that such projects will
involve special issues of an environmental, interstate or international
nature which are of such significant national concern that they
constitute an overriding federal interest.
2. States will be involved in negotiating the next Corps of
Engineers agreement including determination of their respective roles.
In order to be consistent with the concept of delegation and the need for
a single manager, the Corps and the states will be encouraged to -develop
a relationship in which the Corps will be responsible to the state for
the parts of Steps 2 and 3 that the Corps currently manages.. At a
48
-------
minimum, states will have a role in the next Corps agreement
negotiations.
3. The administrative grant mechanism will be reoriented to allow
states to fully administer the grant.The existing federal categorical
grant made' by EPA to municipalities is inconsistent with the thrust of
the preliminary draft 1990 Strategy. Categorical grants direct to the
states would be consistent but offer many potential adverse impacts
(applicability of federal laws to localities, enabling legislation at the
state level, etc.). The recommended option is a grant provided to the
municipalities but approved and awarded by the states. Since the states
will be making the grants to municipalities under this proposal, some EPA
regulations may be amended to cover the EPA-state relationship.
The Federal Role Under Delegation Will Be Directed
Toward Oversight and Assistance
The two recommendations relating to the federal role under
delegation concern a proposed oversight framework and the nature of
assistance to the states.
1. State-managed programs will be evaluated by EPA based on
performance rather than procedures. After initial demonstration that a
state is following suggested program requirements, and has developed
approved procedures, continued state conformance with program
requirements will be generally presumed. Ongoing EPA evaluation of state
performance will focus on the adequacy of each state's progress toward
the program objectives described in Chapter II and other indicators that
provide an early indication of tiate management toward objectives. In
addition, specialized monitoring of a limited scope and for a short
duration will be performed. State progress toward 1990 program
objectives is to be evaluated annually. The specific elements of the
proposed program to oversee and evaluate delegated state performance is
as follows:
• State progress toward program objectives is to be evaluated
annually:
--States will initially develop an overall strategy (see
Planning recommendations for details) to achieve the basic
program objectives. The state strategy will include a
schedule for the funding and completion of all projects
deemed necessary to achieve the objectives and will be
negotiated with and certified by EPA.
— States will annually submit a report to the appropriate EPA
regional office identifying their progress toward the program
objectives over the past year and describing their planned
progress for the coming year. These documents will be
reviewed and approved by EPA in conjunction with the
state-EPA agreement process.
49
-------
— Evaluation will focus on state progress toward achievement of
goals and the fiscal and managerial integrity of the state
program.
— In evaluating state performance, the EPA regional office will
utilize direct measures of performance such as the number and
population of communities meeting BPWTT versus the total
number of communities and their population; the number and
miles of waterways not meeting fishable/swi rumble goals; and
the percentage of projects not meeting scheduled completion
dates.
--In conjunction with the monitoring program, EPA will maintain
a system of incentives and sanctions to ensure that, once
each state has accepted full delegation, its performance is
sustained and national interests are protected. An effective
system rewards good performance; thus, the emphasis in the
EPA system will be placed on the positive and incentive side
of management. States with well managed programs will be
noted to Congress and used as examples.
— If, during the course of an evaluation, EPA finds a state's
performance is lacking in an area, it will work directly with
the state to provide technical or management assistance. In
severe cases, or where state performance deteriorates, EPA
will request legislative adjustments for the following two
authorities:
(1) To withold the 2 percent 205(g) monies for use by EPA
to administer the program itself through contract,
other third parties, or with in-house staff.
(2) To terminate or suspend construction grants program
assistance to projects in the state until the state
performance meets national standards.
These sanctions will apply only in cases of severe
performance problems and will be based on uniform criteria
known to the states in advance. This specific criteria will
be developed in conjunction with the state and other
officials.
During the first year after full delegation to a state, the EPA
regional office will monitor state procedures to ensure (1)
that the state has understood and implemented the federal
program requirements and (2) that only high quality projects
capable of compliance with permit requirements are likely to be
approved.
Every three to five years, EPA will evaluate state procedures
relating to the fiscal integrity the grants program. It is
proposed that this evaluation be performed by an independent
management/accounting firm for the purpose of assuring that
each state is making every effort to protect the fiscal
integrity of the program.
50
-------
• EPA will conduct periodic program evaluations in selected areas
of interest or concern. The purpose of these evaluations will
be to determine the effectiveness of particular aspects of the
program and to recommend program improvements where
appropriate. Examples would be NEPA compliance, evaluations of
the effectiveness of the infiltration/inflow program, the
public participation process, and the minority business
compliance.
• EPA regions will conduct limited-term monitoring of state
operations and/or procedures under the following
circumstances:
--If serious questions arise regarding a state's progress
toward program objectives.
--If significant new program requirements or performance
objectives are developed by EPA.
--If a state significantly changes its procedures or the
conduct of its program.
2. EPA will develop a national program for specialized technical
and managerial assistance to delegated states. Assistance is needed in
several areas, as delegation and EPA's changing role create a greater
dependency on the technical abilities of state and local personnel. The
program will focus on technical and managerial areas. This assistance
will be provided to states desiring it through the technology transfer
program and/or through direct, individualized assistance. In general,
technical assistance will include the identification and transfer of
information on new and improved technology and innovative information;
the identification of knowledge gaps and negotiations for specific
research and development to support the program, as well as integrated
training programs for state agencies in technically complex program areas
and with new initiatives. The technical areas currently targeted for EPA
technical assistance include:
• Management systems for the grants process.
t Operations and management of treatment works.
• Innovative and alternative technology.
t Pretreatment and sludge management.
• Water conservation and energy efficiency.
t Financial management.
it is anticipated that this expertise will be located in one or
perhaps several EPA offices throughout the country, with the EPA regions
serving as the link between these offices and the states. The states
will be the vehicle for providing assistance to the localities.
51
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF 1990 ISSUE PAPERS AND DETAILED STRATEGIES
Proposed 1990 Strategy for Municipal Wastewater Treatment (1/81)
DETAILED STRATEGY PAPERS CONSTITUTING
THE PROPOSED 1990
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS STRATEGY
1. Task I Funding Strategy (1/81)
2. Task II: Management Strategy (1/81)
3. Task III: Operations Strategy (1/81)
4. Task IV: Compliance Strategy (1/81)
5. Task V: Planning Strategy (1/81)
WORKSHOP MATERIALS
1. Workshop Notebook (11/80)
2. Draft Funding Strategy (11/80)
3. Draft Management Strategy (11/80)
4. Draft Operations Strategy (11/80)
5. Draft Compliance Strategy (11/80)
6. Draft Planning Strategy (11/80)
BACKGROUND
ISSUE PAPERS
I. FUNDING STRATEGY
1. First Concept Paper (2/80)
2. Second Concept Paper (6/80)
II. Management Strategy
1. Roles of EPA (6/80)
2. Third Party Management Options for
Small Communities (9//0)
3. State Resources Under 205(g)
4. Technical Support Centers (8/80)
5. National Program Management (9/80)
6. Grantee Marketing (8/80)
53
-------
APPENDIX A CONTINUED
jerat1ons Strategy
1. Background and Problem Definition Paper on Grants Process
(6/80)
2. Small Alternative Wastewater Systems Strategy (5/80)
3. Streamlining Option Papers
a. Overview of Option Papers on
Streamlining (7/80)
b. Certification (7/80)
c. Simplification of A/E Procurement
Procedures (7/80)
d. Economic Incentives for POTW Compliance
with Enforceable Schedules (7/00)
e. Procedures for Reviewing the Profit Element of
Architectural/Engineering Contracts (7/80)
f. Regional Authority for Deviation to
Title II Regulations (7/80)
g. Peer Review (7/80)
h. Simplifying Eligibility of Grantee
Administration, Legal, and Fiscal Costs (7/80)
i. Extended Use of Steps 2 and 3 Grant Awards (7/80)
j. Implementation of Attachment 0 to OMB
Circular A-102 of the Construction Grants
Program (7/80)
k. Advance Work on Step 2 (7/80)
4. Facility Planning Process (9/80)
5. Integrated Waste Management (9/80)
6. Innovative and Alternative Program (9/80)
7. Quality Assurance (9/80)
8. Inflow/Infiltration (9/80)
9. Other Federal Laws (9//8)
10. Generic Plans for Small Communities (9/80)
IV. Compli ance Strategy
1. Background and Problem Definition Paper on
Compliance (7/80)
2. Quality of New Treatment Facilities (10/00)
3. Improving POTW Compliance by Correcting
Influent Problems (10/80)
4. Improving Performance of POTWs Through Construction
Grants Program (9//0)
5. Improving Compliance at Existing Municipal
Treatment Facilities (9/80)
6. Financial Management (9/80)
7. Enforcement Aspects of Compliance (11/80)
8. Compliance--Existing Plants
54
-------
APPENDIX A CONTINUED
V. Planning Strategy
1. Water Quality Standards Strategy (9/80)
2. Policy Statement Water Quality Standards
Attainability and Upgrading (9/80)
3. Water Monitoring Strategy (9/80)
4. Background Paper on Planning (10/80)
55
-------
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF KEY WORDS AND ACRONYMS
A/E
AJE
AST/AWT
BAT
BPWTT
CGP
Circuit Riders
Col lectors
CPM
- Architectural and Engineering
- Alternative Justifiable Expenditures is a method of
allocating the costs of a multiple-purpose project
to the individual project purposes.
- Advanced Secondary Treatment and Advanced Wastewater
Treatment are required where treatment more
stringent than secondary treatment is needed. These
treatments greatly reduce levels of effluent and are
useful for removing pollutants such as phosphorus,
ammonia, nitrates, or organic and other substances.
- Best Available Technology is defined as a wastewater
treatment method for toxic and conventional
pollutants that most effectively and economically
achieves the effluent standard set for a particular
facility.
- Best Practicable Wastewater Treatment Technology is
a designation given to the minimum secondary level
of treatment or whatever higher level of treatment
is needed at a specific POTW to achieve the water
quality standards there. The water quality
standards include a consideration of the technical,
economic and environmental feasibility of reaching
them. At present, BPWTT requires secondary
treatment as a minimum for treatment and discharge
of conventional and toxic pollutants.
- Construction Grants Program
- Circuit riders are government-sponsored technical
staff who would be available to a number of
treatment plants within a region to aid in the
management of a facility or help in the correction
of an operational or compliance problem.
- Collectors are the part of the sewer system designed
to transport wastewater from individual buildings to
the main interceptor sewerage lines. New collectors
are necessary to correct violations caused by raw
discharges and the seepage of waters from septic
tanks.
- Critical Path Method is a method of operations
analysis designed to optimize the time spent on and
the costs of any process or operation. This method
could be used on the Construction Grants Program to
eliminate redundancies in the process and expedite
the processing of individual steps.
57
-------
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
cso
Combined Sewer Overflows are sewer system designs
that allow for the bypassing, during high flow
periods, of untreated wastes directly into
surrounding bodies of water. Monies directed to
this category are for the purpose of preventing or
controlling this periodic bypassing.
CWA - The Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500) passed in 1972 is
the major legislative authorization for many of
EPA's water quality initiatives, including the
Construction Grants Program. It was amended again
in 1977.
DMR - Discharge Monitoring Report is a quarterly report
filed by all treatment plants to the state or other
authority giving the results of effluent quality
tests performed during the testing period. The DMR
is the method through which compliance with NPDES
permits is ascertained.
GAO - General Accounting Office
GICS - The Grants Information and Control System is an
agencywide computer-oriented management system that
contains general purpose information on all EPA
grant programs, whether the program is administered
through EPA headquarters or through the Regions.
Hydraulic Overload - Hydraulic overload refers to the state of a
treatment facility when incoming flows of wastewater
are too large in volume to be adequately handled and
treated by the facility. This state may be due to
infiltration problems, especially after rain storms
or excessive domestic flows, to cite two possible
explanations.
I/A - Innovative or Alternative. Innovative project
designs are those that incorporate new technologies
in the treatment process. Alternative project
designs, on the other hand, step away from the
conventional treatment methods for wastewater and
utilize site-specific characteristics which produce
new methods of waste treatment; usually alternative
projects are most feasible in low density areas.
These two types of designs are provided with funding
for 85 percent of their eligible project costs by
the Construction Grants Program.
ICR - Industrial Cost Recovery refers to the plan each
facility must develop during the application
process, through which industries served by the
facility must repay their fair share of the
project's capital costs (part of which goes to the
U.S. Treasury). However, the clause was postponed
by Congress in the 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Wat*-*- Act.
58
-------
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
I/I
Interceptors
I PA
IWM
Land Treatment
MGD
Needs Categories
Needs Survey
NEPA
- Infiltration/Inflow. Infiltration is ground water
entering a sewer system through defective sewer
pipes, joints, connections, or manhole walls.
Inflow is caused by cross connections from storm
sewers and combined sewers, manhole covers, and
yards, cellars, and foundation drains. Because of
I/I problems, flow greater than the capacity of the
treatment plant can result in wastes bypassing the
treatment process.
- Interceptors are the part of the sewer system
designed to transport bulk wastewater from the
collector system to the treatment plant.
Transmission pumping stations are also part of the
interceptor system.
- Interagency Personnel Agreements loan EPA experts to
the state or local levels for one or two years in
order to provide training of personnel and expertise
in needed areas.
- Integrated Waste Management. The planning, design,
and construction of facilities for the treatment and
disposal/utilization of all wastes (e.g., municipal
solid wastes, hazardous wastes, radioactive waste).
- The application of treated wastewater to land
surfaces for ultimate disposal either with or
without the use of this waste for irrigation
purposes.
- Millions of gallons per day
- Needs Categories are the seven major types of
projects funded by the Construction Grants Program.
They are: (I) Secondary Treatment; (II) Advanced
Secondary Treatment/Advanced Wastewater Treatment;
(IIIA) Infiltration/Inflow; (IIIB) Rehabilitation;
(IVA) Collectors; (IVB) Interceptors; and (V) CSOs.
- The 1978 Needs Survey is a detailed estimate of the
costs of construction of all needed publicly owned
treatment works in all of the states. This survey
was completed in order to provide a basis for the
Congressional allotment of funds to the Construction
Grants Program.
- The National Environmental Policy Act dictates that
federal agencies must take into consideration the
environmental affects of any proposed actions when
making decisions. Its most conspicuous requirement
is the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement for projects with a potential to cause
significant environmental impact.
59
-------
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
Non-Point Source
Programs
NPDES
O&M
Pipeline
Pipes
POMS and PRMS
POTWs
Replacement and
Rehabilitation
Secondary
Treatment
Set-aside
- Non-point source programs are attempts to control
pollutants from areawide sources, such as runoff
from agricultural and forest lands, runoff from
mining and construction, and storm runoff from urban
areas.
- The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
is a national permit program designed to control the
discharge of pollutants into waterways from all
specific point sources including industrial and
municipal treatment facilities and commercial
activities. It is administered by EPA or an EPA-
approved state .agency. The permits are enforceable
and must be renewed at least every five years.
- Operations and Maintenance
- The status of projects that have begun the
Construction Grants Process but have not yet
completed it is often referred to as "in the
pipeline."
- Pipes are those project types relating more to the
delivery of wastewater to the treatment plant than
to the actual treating of the wastewater. Specific
categories in the "pipes" class are (IIIB)
Rehabilitation, (IVA) Collectors, and (IVB)
Interceptors.
- Program Operations Memorandum and Program
Requirements Memorandum state EPA's interpretation
of portions of the CWA and EPA's related policy
statements.
- Pub! icly owned treatment works is the general term
used to refer to all treatment facilities funded
under the Construction Grants Program.
Replacement and Rehabilitation is the project
category name for the correction of structural
problems in existing sewer systems.
Secondary treatment is the treatment of wastewater
by biological methods after primary treatment by
sedimentation.
A set-aside is the mechanism for specifying the
particular amount of money to be used for a
particular type of project, such as I/A or rural.
60
-------
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
Sludge Management - Sludge management is the management of the disposal
of solid waste products from a wastewater treatment
plant.
SMSAs
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Storrnwater
TMDL
User charges
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas are defined
by the U.S. Department of Commerce either as one
city of 50,000 or more inhabitants or as a city with
at least 25,000 inhabitants which, together with
contiguous places, has a combined population of
50,000 inhabitants and is for all general purposes
considered a single economic and social community.
Step 1 of the Construction Grants Program initiates
the planning and engineering of a POTW. Often Step
1 is a combination of what has come to be known as a
pre-Step 1 and Step 1. Pre-Step 1 planning includes
expected costs, work schedules, and project
compatability with regional plans. Step 1 itself
produces a facility plan which defines the problem,
examines alternative solutions, and selects one
solution for implementation.
Step 2 of CGP develops the detailed plans for the
treatment plants based on the facilities plan
produced in Step 1. Both technical and
administrative requirements must be addressed in the
plans along with cost estimates from which bids for
construction can be judged.
Step 3 of CGP is the combination of Step 3 and
post-Step 3. In Step 3 the plant is actually
constructed and put into operation. Post-Step 3
involves the final project reviews, reports, and
financial audits.
Step 4 is the combination of Steps 2 and 3 of the
Construction Grants Program. Step 4 grants are
awarded to facilities whose total project cost will
not amount to over $2 million.
Stormwater is water that flows over hard surfaces,
such as roads and parking lots, and into municipal
drainage systems as a result of rainfall or other
precipitation.
Total Maximum Daily Loads are the greatest amounts
of pollutants that an individual facility may
discharge into a body of water on a daily basis.
This level is defined in each facility's NPDES
permit.
User charges are the rates whereby users of the
treatment facility are charged for the service so
61
-------
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
that all operating and maintenance as well as any
capital repayment costs of the facility are
collected from the system's users. User charges are
usually based on metered water usage.
WLA - Waste Load Allocations allocate pollutant loads that
may be imposed on a water body by individual
dischargers and also help identify point source
permit conditions.
WQM - Water Quality Management is the attempt to control
and manage all factors that affect the quality of a
body of water. Included in this is the control of
both point and non-point sources of pollutants.
WQS - Water Quality Standards are legal designations of
the desired use for a given water body and of the
water quality criteria appropriate for that use.
62
-------
APPENDIX C
MEETINGS, BRIEFINGS, WORK SESSIONS, AND CONFERENCES WITH NUMEROUS
PUBLICS INDIVIDUALS ON THE 1990 STRATEGY
Meetings, Briefings, and Work Sessions
Environmental and Rural Interests, State and
Local Government, and Economic Interest
Monthly Briefings
1990 Policy Committee Monthly Meetings
1990 EPA Steering Committee Monthly Meetings
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
Sledge Committee Monthly Briefings and Work
Sessions
Construction Grants Advisory Group
Association of Consulting Engineers Council
Environmental Industry Council
National Utilities Contractors Association
National League of Cities
Local Government Work Session and Policy Meeting
League of Women Voters
National Association of Counties
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
National Food Processors Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
Building and Construction Trades
State of Maryland 201-208 Advisory Committee
Management Advisory Group to EPA's Municipal
Construction Division
Society of the Plastics Industry
American Clean Water Association
National Council of State Legislators
July-December
July-December
July-December
August-December
August
September
September
September
September
October
October
October
October
October
October
November
November
November
November
December
December
December
63
-------
APPENDIX C CONTINUED
1990 National Combined Interest Group December
Conference Report-Back
ASIWPCA Mid-Winter Meeting January
Conferences
National Society of Professional Engineers September
American Society of Civil Engineers October
White House Rural Policy Conference October
Water Pollution Control Federation October
1990 National Strategy Workshop November
-------
APPENDIX D
1990 National Construction Grants Strategy Workshop
November 16-22, 1980
Participants
J. Stanley Alexander
National Conference of Black Mayors
Washington, D.C.
Fred Burton
Bluefield City Manager
West Virginia
Warren L. Carter
State Water Control Board
Virginia
Frank Cervi
National Assn. Development Org.
Colorado
Edith Chase
League of Women Voters
Ohio
Ray Chavez
New Mexico Water D&S Corporation
New Mexico
Lee H. dayman
Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments
Maryland
Maurice Dorton
Dept of the Metropolitan Council
Minnesota
Andy Ellicott
Water Pollution Control Federation
Washington, D.C.
Paul Freese
Camp, Dresser, McKee, Inc.
Maryland
Joseph Frisella
Frisella Engineering
Rhode Island
Steve Garman
Pensacola City Manager
Florida
Louis Gilde
Campbell Soup, Inc.
New Jersey
James E. Gutman
State Water Quality Advisory Comm.
Maryland
Mark Hammer
University of Nebraska
Nebraska
Fred Harper
Orange County
California
Sanitation District
Ted Heemstra
Citizens Advisory Streams
Pollution Control Board
Indiana
Andrew Howarth
Rural Community
Massachusetts
assistance Program
Eric Kaston
New York City Dept. of
Environmental Protection
New York
William Katz
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District
Wisconsin
Paul B. Kelman
Atlanta Regional
Georgia
Commission
Lane Kendig
Lake County Planning
Illinois
D. J. Kirk
Environmental
Pennsylvania
Engineer
Ruth Kretschmer
Supervisor DuPage County
Illinois
65
-------
APPENDIX D CONTINUED
1990 National Construction Grants Strategy Workshop
November 16-22, 1980
Participants
(Continued)
Tex LaRosa
Dept. of Water Resources
Vermont
Susan Lofgren
League of Women Voters
Arizona
W. J. McKee
National Society of
Professional Engineers
Washington, D. C.
Tess McNulty
League of Women Voters
Colorado
Bob Nicholson
Zimpro, Inc.
Wisconsin
Jack Odgaard
Nebraska Water Resources Assoc.
Nebraska
Tarn R. Osborne
Virginia Water Project
Virginia
Ervin S. Queen
Appalachian Water & Sewer
Development Association
West Virginia
William Reinhard
State Office of the Comptroller
Tennessee
John Scheaffer
Scheaffer & Roll in
Illinois
James P. Schafer
Havens & Emerson, Inc.
Ohio
Wayne Schmidt
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
Michigan
Dale Twachmann
Institute of Water Resources
Florida
Larry Walker
Larry Walker Associates
California
Barbara Webber
Natural Resources
Indiana
Committee
John B. Wells, Jr.
Water Resources Assistance Corp.
Kentucky
Clyde Wilber III
Greeley & Hansen
Washington, D.C.
Betty Woodruff
League of Women Voters
Missouri
Kenneth Bartal
States Conference on Water Quality
Pennsylvania
Susan Boyd
Concern, Inc.
Washington, D. C.
Ron Buckhalt
National Utility Contractors Assn.
Washington, D. C.
Gould Charshee, Jr.
Regional Planning Council
Maryland
Fred Cooper
Mississippi Institute
Mississippi
for Small Towns
66
-------
APPENDIX D CONTINUED
1990 National Construction Grants Strategy Workshop
November 16-22, 1980
Participants
(Continued)
Glen Enrich
County of Fairfax Public Works
Virginia
I. B. Ellis
W.S. Dickey Co.
Kansas
Senator Fred Finlinson
Utah State Senate
Utah
John Flynn
International Union of
Operating Engineers
Washington, D.C.
Patrick C. Glisson
DeKalb County Office of Finance
Georgia
Edward Graham
Washington Surburban Sanitary Comm.
Maryland
Audrey Jackson
League of Women Voters
Oregon
Lynn Judd
University of Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Charles Kaiser, Jr.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewage District
Missouri
Charles Kamasaki
National Council of La Raza
Texas
Austan Librach
Washington Metropolitan Council
of Governments
Washington, D.C.
Robert McGarry
Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm.
Maryland
Peggy McNeil!
Mercer Company Soil
District
New Jersey
Conservation
Patricia M. Nesbitt
Environmental Consultant
Virginia
E. J. Newbould
National Clay Pipe Institute
Washington, D. C.
Bob 01t
Union Carbide Corporation
New York
Neal Potter
Councilman for Montgomery County
Maryland
Clem Rastatter
The Conservation Foundation
Washington, D. C.
Merilyn Reeves
League of Women Voters
Maryland
Robert Robinson
Michigan Township Assoc.
Michigan
Samuel H. Sage
Sierra Club
New York
Frederick Schauffler
New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission
Massachusetts
67
-------
APPENDIX D CONTINUED
1990 National Construction Grants Strategy Workshop
November 16-22, 1980
Participants
(Continued)
Garrett Sloan
Miami Water Sewer Authority
Florida
Joel Smith
Oklahoma Wildlife Federation
Oklahoma
Raymond J. Smit
National Society of
Professional Engineers
Michigan
John Wander
Peat, Marwick, and Mitchel, Inc.
Washington, D. C.
Joe Waters
Heart of Georgia Planning and
Development Commission
Georgia
Laurence Weatherholts
National Utilities Contractors Asso.
Maryland
Calvin E. Weber
Westchester County Dept of Health
New York
John J. Wright
Greater Birmingham Association of
Home Builders
Alabama
L. Carl Yates
McGoodwin, Williams & Yates, Inc.
Arkansas
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981-0-7ZO-016/:>985 68
------- |