-------
10368
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   (b) A determination by the displacing
agency that a dwelling meets the criteria
for decent, safe, and sanitary housing is
solely for the purpose of this subpart and
is not a  representation for  any other
purpose.

Subpart D—Relocation Assistance Advisory
               Services
§ 4.400   Requirements   for   relocation
     assistance advisory programs.
  The displacing agency must provide a
relocation  assistance advisory program
for displaced persons. The program must
provide for:
   (a) Explaining to displaced persons
the relocation assistance and payments
that are available.
   (b)  Assisting  displaced  persons  to
complete applications required for pay-
ments;
   (c) Determining the needs of displaced
persons for relocation assistance.
   (d) Informing displaced persons as to
the availability and cost of  comparable
replacement  dwellings and comparable
locations for displaced business and farm
operations;
   (e) Assisting each displaced person to
obtain and move to a  comparable re-
placement dwelling;
   (f) Informing displaced persons as to
Federal and State  housing  programs;
and
   (g) Providing counsel and advice  to
displaced persons that will minimize the
hardships associated with adjusting  to
a new location.
§ 4.401   Extension of service.
  If a displacing agency  determines that
any person occupying property immedi-
ately adjacent to the real property ac-
quired is caused substantial economic in-
jury because of  the acquisition,  reloca-
tion advisory services -may  be  offered
such person.
§ 4.402  Displaced  person declining  to
     accept relocation services.
  A displaced person is  not  required  to
accept the relocation services provided
for his  benefit.  He  may choose to re-
locate on  his own  and  still be  eligible
for payment  if the replacement housing
meets the  occupancy requirements of de-
cent, safe,  and  sanitary  housing and
application for payment is  within the
prescribed time limits.
§ 4.403   Information for displaced per-
     sons.
   (a) The displacing agency must de-
liver to each displaced  person either  in
person or by certified mail, return receipt
requested:
   (1) A brochure or letter explaining the
relocation assistance advisory program;
and
   (2) If it is not included in the bro-
chure, a notice stating the eligibility re-
quirements  for  payments for replace-
ment housing and moving expenses.
   (3) In addition, if the displaced per-
son is a homeowner or tenant, a written
statement setting forth the optional types
and the actual amount of replacement
housing payments to which he is entitled.
  (b) The information required by para-
graph (a) of  this section shall be fur-
nished:
  (1) To homeowners not later than the
initiation of negotiations for the prop-
erty or the issuance of a written notice of
intent to acquire the property by a def-
inite date, as the case may be: and
  (2) To tenants within 15 days after
the initiation  of negotiations  for  the
property or the  issuance of a written
notice of intent to acquire the property
by a definite date as the case may be.
  (c)  The displacing agency shall notify
each  displaced person  of his right to
appeal.
§ 4.404   Public information.
  (a) To insure public awareness of its
relocation assistance  advisory  program,
the displacing agency shall provide an
opportunity for presentation of informa-
tion and discussion of relocation services
and payments at public hearings, pre-
pare a relocation brochure, and give full
and adequate public notice of the reloca-
tion program  for each project to which
this part applies.
  (b)  In areas where a  language other
than  English is predominant, public in-
formation shall be published in the pre-
dominant language as well as in English.
§ 4.405   Coordination  of relocation ac-
    tivities.
  (a) When the  displacing  agency con-
templates displacement in a given area,
it shall  furnish to the appropriate HUD
area  office information regarding proj-
ects which will cause displacement and
shall  consult with that office concerning
the availability of housing. HUD Re-
gional offices should be used in areas not
served by an area office.
  (1)  A directory of HUD Regional and
area offices is provided in Appendix B to
this-part. Subsequent updated directories
can be obtained from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
  (b) Pursuant to the requirements and
procedures promulgated  by  Office  of
Management and Budget Circular A-95
(Revised), the displacing  agency shall
consult   appropriate    local   officials
through the State clearinghouse.
  (c)  The displacing agency shall desig-
nate at  least one  representative who will
meet  periodically with the representa-
tives  of other  displacing agencies to re-
view the impact of their respective pro-
grams on the area.
  (d) The displacing agency shall estab-
lish channels of communication and co-
ordinate its displacement activities with
other agencies planning or  carrying out
relocation in the  affected area. The per-
son assigned by the. displacing agency to
provide relocation assistance for a par-
ticular  project shall maintain personal
contact and exchange information with
welfare agencies, urban renewal agencies,
redevelopment authorities, public hous-
ing authorities, the Federal Housing Ad-
ministration, the Veterans  Administra-
tion, the Small Business Administration
and other agencies providing services to
displaced persons. He shall also collect
and maintain information  on private
replacement properties in  the area of
the  project  through personal  contact
with  real  estate brokers, real estate
boards, property managers, apartment
owners and operators, and home building
contractors.
§ 4.406  Contracting for relocation serv-
     ices.
  (a)  To prevent unnecessary expenses
and duplication of  activities, an agency
that  is required to provide  relocation
services  or make  relocation payments
under this part  may carry out  any of
those  functions  through the facilities,
personnel,  and services  of  a Federal,
State, or local governmental or  private
agency having an established organiza-
tion for conducting relocation assistance
programs.
  (b)  When  a central relocation agency
is available in the project area or com-
munity, the displacing agency shall con-
sider entering into an  agreement with
such agency.  Regional and area offices of
the Department  of Housing and Urban
Development  can  provide information
concerning relocation service  agencies.
(Appendix B  to this part).
  (c)  If a central  relocation agency  is
not available or  is  unable, in the judg-
ment of the displacing agency, to provide
the necessary services within the time re-
quired, the displacing agency may pro-
vide  relocation  services  through  con-
tracts with another public agency or a
private contractor.
g 4.406—1  Written agreement  required.
  If the displacing  agency elects to pro-
vide relocation services or make reloca-
tion payments through another agency,
it shall enter into  a written agreement
with  that  agency. The  agreement  must
be approved  by  the Administrator  and
must contain the following:
  (a)  An obligation on the part of the
other agency to perform the services and
make the relocation payments in accord-
ance with the Uniform Relocation Assist-
ance and Real Property Acquisition Pol-
icies Act of 1970, and this part.
  (b)  If the  contract is with a public
agency administering another Federal or
federally assisted program, a description
of the financial  responsibilities of each
program to finance the relocation pro-
gram required by this part.
  (c)  A  provision  acknowledging that
only those costs directly chargeable to
the EPA or EPA assisted project are eligi-
ble for EPA funds.
  (d)  A  provision for  negotiation of
major changes that become necessary in
the scope,  character,  or estimated total
costs of the work to be performed.
  (e)  Clauses required  by EPA  regula-
tions implementing Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-353).
  (f) A  provision that the records re-
quired by Appendix A be retained by the
other agency or turned over to  the dis-
placing agency and  that they be retained
for a period of at least 3 years after pay-
ment of the final voucher on each proj-
ect, regardless of which agencv  retains
them.
  (g)  A  provision that the records re-
quired by  Appendix A  to this  part be
available for  inspection by representa-
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO.  54—TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1974

-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        10369
 tives of the Environmental Protection
 Agency or the General Accounting Office
 at any reasonable business hour.
   (h)  Any other provisions required by
 the  Administrator to meet the require-
 ments of EPA regulations and policies
 applicable to EPA supported projects.
   Subpart E—Federally Assisted Projects
 § 4.500  State agency assurances.
  The Environmental Protection Agency
 will  not approve a  grant, contract, or
 agreement for  an EPA assisted project
 until the State agency provides the  Ad-
 ministrator   with satisfactory  written
 assurances that:
   (a) For projects resulting  in the  dis-
 placement of any person:
  (1) It will adequately inform the pub-
 lic of the relocation payments and serv-
 ices which will be available as set forth in
 Subparts A, B, C, and D of this part.
  (2) It will provide fair and reasonable
 relocation payments to displaced persons
 as required by Subparts B and  C of  this
 part.
  (3) It will provide a relocation assist-
 ance program for displaced persons  of-
 fering  services  described  in Subpart D
 of this part; and
  (4) Comparable  replacement  dwell-
 ings  will be available pursuant to Subpart
 C of this part, or provided if necessary, a
 reasonable period in advance of the time
 any person is displaced.
  (b) For projects resulting  in the  ac-
 quisition of real property:
  (1) It will fully comply with the  re-
 quirements of Subpart F of this part;  and
  (2) Adequately inform  the public of
 the  acquisition policies,  requirements,
 and  payments  which will apply to  the
 project.
 § 4.500—1   Inability  to  provide assur-
     ances.
  If  a State agency is unable to provide
 the  assurances required by § 4.500,  for
 any  program or projects that will result
 in the displacement of any person or the
 acquisition of any real property, it must
 furnish the Administrator a statement
 specifying any  provisions of  the assur-
 ances required by this section which it is
 unable to provide in whole or in part
 under the laws  of that State. The state-
ment must be supported  by an opinion
 of the Chief Legal Officer of the  State
 agency of the legal inability to provide
any part of the required assurances.
 § 4.501   Monitoring.
  The Environmental Protection Agency
will  monitor on a continuing basis,  ac-
 tions taken by State agencies in relation
 to assurances given for EPA assisted pro-
grams  and projects to insure conform-
 ance with such assurances.
 § 4.502  EPA share of costs.
  (a) The cost to a State agency of pro-
 viding  the payments and services  re-
 quired by Subparts B, C,  and D of this
 part, and the additional identifiable cost
 to a  State agency of providing  the pay-
 ments and services required by Subpart
 F of this part, shall be included as part
 of the  cost of the EPA assisted project
 and, except as provided In paragraph (b)
 of this section,  the  State  agency  is
 eligible for EPA financial assistance with
 respect to those costs in the same  man-
 ner and to the same extent as  other
 project costs.
   (b)  If EPA assistance is by grant or
 contribution, the  Environmental  Pro-
 tection Agency will pay a State agency
 the full amount of the first $25,000 of the
 cost of providing the payments and serv-
 ices described in this part for any dis-
 placed person because of any acquisition
 or displacement occurring before July 1,
 1972.
   (c)  If the Administrator determines it
 is necessary for the expeditious comple-
 tion of a program or project, he may ad-
 vance to the State agency the EPA  share
 of the cost of any payment of assistance
 by such State agency  pursuant  to sec-
 tions 206,  210, 215, and 305 of the Uni-
 form  Relocation  Assistance  and  Real
 Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
 § 4.503  Use of EPA financial assistance.
   (a)  The type of  interest acquired in
 real property does not affect the  eligi-
 bility of related relocation costs for EPA
 financial assistance provided the interest
 is sufficient to cause displacement.
   (b)  EPA financial assistance may not
 be used to pay a relocated person for any
 loss that is due to his negligence.
   (c)  EPA financial assistance may not
 be used  for any payment to a displaced
 person IS that person receives a separate
 payment which is:
   (1)  Required  by  the State  law of
 eminent domain;
   (2)  Determined by the Administrator
 to  have  substantially  the same purpose
 and effect  as a payment under this  part;
 and
   (3)  Otherwise included as a  project
 cost for which financial  assistance is
 available.
 Subpart F—Acquisition of Real Property
 § 4.600  Applicability.
   The requirements  prescribed by this
 subpart  apply to the acquisition  of real
 property (including easements) for EPA
 administered and EPA assisted projects.
 § 4.601  Acquisition.
 § 4.601-1   Procedures.
   In acquiring real property, the displac-
 ing agency shall:
   (a)  Adequately inform the public of
the acquisition policies, requirements, and
 payments  which apply to  the project;
   (b)  Make every reasonable  effort to
 acquire  real  property   expeditiously
 through negotiation;
   (c)  Before the initiation of negotia-
 tions have the real property  appraised
 and give the owner or his representa-
 tive an opportunity to accompany the
 appraiser during inspection of the prop-
 erty;
   (d)  Before the initiation of negotia-
 tions, establish an amount which it be-
 lieves  to be  just compensation for the
 real property, and make a prompt  offer
 to acquire the property for that amount;
   (e) Before requiring any owner to sur-
 render  possession of real property the
 displacing agency will:
   (1) Pay the agreed purchase price; or
   (2)  Deposit  with the  court, for the
 benefit of the owner, an amount not less
 than the agency's approved appraisal of
 the fair market value of the property; or
   (3) Pay the amount of the award of
 compensation in a  condemnation pro-
 ceeding for the property.
   (f) If interest in real  property is to
 be acquired by exercise of the power of
 eminent domain, institute  formal con-
 demnation proceedings and not  inten-
 tionally make it necessary for an owner
 to institute  legal proceedings to prove
 the fact of the taking of his real proper-
 ty; and
   (g) Offer to acquire the  entire prop-
 erty, if acquisition of only part of a prop-
 erty would leave its owner  with an un-
 economic remnant.
 §  4.601-2   Limitations.
   In acquiring  real property, the  dis-
 placing agency may not:
   (a) Schedule the  construction  or de-
 velopment of a public improvement that
 will require any person lawfully occupy-
 ing real property to move from a dwell-
 ing, or to move his business or farm
 operation, without  giving  that  person
 at least 90 days writen notice of the date
 he is required to move;
   (b) If the displacing agency rents ac-
 quired real property to the former owner
 or tenant for a short term or subject to
 termination by the agency on short no-
 tice, charge rent that is  more than the
 fair rental  value of the  property to  a
 short-term occupant;
   (c) Advance the time of  condemnation;
   (d) Defer negotiations,  condemnation,
 or the deposit of funds in court for use
 of the owner; or
   (e) Take any coercive action to compel
 an owner  to agree  to a price for his
 property.
 § 4.601-3  Appraisal.
   (a) As  a general rule only one  ap-
 praisal  will be obtained  on  each tract,
 unless the displacing agency determines
 that circumstances require an additional
 appraisal or appraisals.
   (b) Real property acquisition records
 shall show that the  owner or his  desig-
 nated representative has  been given an
 opportunity to accompany the appraiser
 during his inspection of the property.
   
-------
10370
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (a) An identification of the real prop-
erty and the particular interest being ac-
quired;
  (b) A certification, where  applicable,
that any separately held Interest In the
real property is not being acquired  in
whole or in part;
  (c)  An  identification of   buildings,
structures, and other improvements, in-
cluding  fixtures,  removable  building
equipment, and any trade fixtures which
are considered  to  be part of  the  real
property for which  the offer of just com-
pensation is made;
  (d) An identification of any real prop-
erty improvements,  including fixtures,
not owned by the owner of the land;
  (e)  An identification of the  types and
approximate quantity of personal prop-
erty located on the premises that is not
being acquired;
  (f)  A declaration that the  agency's
determination of just compensation:
  (1)  Is based on the fair market value
of the property;
  (2)  Is not less than the approved ap-
praised value of the property;
  (3)  Disregards any  decrease  or in-
crease  in the fair  market value  of the
property  caused by the  contemplated
project;
  (4)  In the case of separately held in-
terests in the real property, includes  an
apportionment of the total just compen-
sation for each  of  those interests;  and
  (g) The amount  of damages to any re-
maining real property.
§ 4.603   Equal interest in improvements
    to be acquired.
  In acquiring any  interest in real prop-
erty each displacing agency shall acquire
at least an equal Interest in all building,
structures, or other improvements locat-
ed on that real property which will be re-
moved or which  will be adversely affected
by the completed project.
§ 4.604  Notice to occupants.
  (a) Owner-occupants.  Simultaneous
with the fair market value offer,  owner-
occupants of real  property  to be ac-
quired,  shall be  furnished in writing,  by
the displacing agency, an explanation of
their rights under  the Uniform Reloca-
tion Assistance  and Real Property Ac-
quisition Policies Act of 1970  and these
regulations.
   (b)  Tenants.  Within 15 days following
the initiation of negotiations, the dis-
placing  agency shall  notify affected,
tenants and occupants, in writing, of the
initiation of  negotiations and of  their
rights under the Act of thesejegulations.
§ 4.605   Acquisition of improvements.
   (a) In the case  of a building, struc-
ture, or other improvement owned  by a
tenant  on real  property acquired for a
project to which this  part  applies, the
displacing agency shall, subject to para-
 graph (b) of this section, pay the tenant
the larger of:
   (1) The fair  market  value of the im-
provement, assuming its removal  from
the property; or
  (2) The enhancement of the fair mar-
ket value of the real property.
  (b) A payment may not'be made to a
tenant under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion unless:
  (1) The tenant, in consideration for
the payment, assigns, transfers, and re-
leases  to the displacing  agency all his
right, title, and interest in the improve-
ment;
  (2) The owner of the  land involved
disclaims all interest in  the improve-
ment; and
  (3) The payment is not duplicated by
any payment  otherwise  authorized  by
law.
§ 4.606  Transfer of title expenses.
  As soon as possible after real property
has been acquired, the displacing agency
shall reimburse the owner for:
  (a) Recording fees, transfer taxes, and
similar expenses incidental to conveying
the real property to the agency;
  (b) Penalty  costs for  prepayment of
any preexisting recorded mortgage en-
tered into in good faith encumbering the
real property; and
  (c)' The pro-rata portion of  any pre-
paid property taxes which are allocable
to  a period subsequent to  the date of
vesting title in the  agency or the effec-
tive date of possession of the real prop-
erty by the agency, whichever is the
earlier.
§ 4.607  Litigation expenses.
  (a) In any condemnation proceeding
brought by the displacing agency to ac-
quire real property, it  shall reimburse
the owner of any right, title, or interest
in the real property for his reasonable
cost,  disbursements, and expenses, in-
cluding  attorney,  appraisal, and engi-
neering  fees, actually incurred because
of the proceeding, if:
  (1) The  final  judgment  is  that the
displacing  agency  cannot  acquire the
real property by condemnation;  or
   (2)  The proceeding is  abandoned by
the displacing agency concerned.
   (b) In any inverse condemnation pro-
ceeding where  the  owner of any right,
title, or  interest in real property receives
an award  of compensation by judgment
or settlement, the displacing agency shall
reimburse the plaintiff for his reasonable
costs,  disbursements, and expenses, in-
cluding -reasonable attorney, appraisal,
and engineering  fees, actually  incurred
because of the proceeding.
§ 4.608  Real  property provided by State
     agency for an EPA project.
   (a)  Whenever  a  State agencv is obli-
gated to provide the necessary real prop-
erty incident to an  EPA project, the En-
vironmental Pr6tection Agency may not
accept that real property until it is de-
termined  that  the State  agency has
made  all payments and provided all as-
sistance and assurances  required of a
State Agency by  § 4.500.
   (b)  The State agency shall pay the
cost of  such requirements  in  the same
manner and to the same extent as the
real property acquired for such project,
except that in the case of any real prop-
erty acquisition or displacement occur-
ring prior to July 1, 1972, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall  pay the
first $25,000 of the cost of providing the
required payments and assistance.
          APPENDIX A—RECORDS
  I. Land acquisition.  For purpose of Title
III  of the Act,  the acquiring  agency shall
keep a record of the  following information
concerning each acquisition  of any interest
in land used for an EPA supported project:
  (1)  The identification of the property and
the estate or interests acquired,  including
Improvements; owners and occupants.
  (2)  The appraisal.
  (3)  The offer.
  (4)  The date and method of  acquisition.
  (5)  The date,  amount, and purpose of pay-
ments to owners and others.
  II. General information concerning the
project. A displacing  agency  shall keep a
record  of the following general information
for each EPA administered or EPA assisted
project:
  (1)  Project and parcel identification;
  (2)  Name  and address of each displaced
person;
  (3)  Dates  of  all personal contacts made
with each displaced person;
  (4)  Date each displaced person is given
notice  of relocation payments and services.
  (5)  Name  of  agency employee who offers
relocation  assistance.
  (6)  The date  the offer of assistance is de-
clined  or accepted, and the name of the In-
dividual who accepts  or declines the offer.
  (7)  Date each displaced person Is required
to move.
  (8)  Date of actual relocation, and whether
relocation was accomplished with the assist-
ance of the displacing agency, other agencies,
or without assistance.
   (9)  Type of tenure held by each  displaced
person before and after relocation.
  III. Displacement from dwellings. The dis-
placing agency  shall keep a  record  of the
following Information  concerning each indi-
vidual or family displaced from a dwelling In
connection with the project:
   (1) Number In family, or number of Indi-
viduals.
   (2) Type of dwelling.
   (3) Fair market value, or monthly rent.
   (4) Number of rooms.
  IV. Displaced businesses.  The displacing
agency shall keep a record of  the  following
Information concerning each  business dis-
placed In  connection with the project.
   (1)  Type of business.
   (2)  Whether or not relocated.
   (3) If relocated, distance moved.
   (4)  Data supporting a determination that
a business cannot be relocated without a
substantial loss of Its existing patronage and
that It Is not part of a commercial enterprise
having at least  one other establishment not
being  acquired by a State agency  or  the
United States.
  V. Moving expenses. The displacing agency
shall keep a record of the following Informa-
tion concerning each payment  of moving and
related expenses  In  connection   with  the
project:
   (1)  The date personal property  Is  moved,
and the original and new locations of the
personal property.
   (2) If personal property Is  stored tempo-
rarily:
   (a)  The place of storage;
   (b)  The duration of storage; and
   (c)  A statement of why storage Is neces-
sary.
   (3) An account of all moving expenses that
are supported by receipted  bills or  similar
evidence of expenses;
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  39, NO. 54—TUESDAY, MARCH 19,  1974
-------
                                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                10371
   (4)  Amount of reimbursement  claimed,
 amount allowed, and an explanation of any
 difference;
   (5) In the case of a business or farm opera-
 tion that receives  a fixed allowance m lieu
 of  moving  expenses,  data  underlying the
 computation of such payment.
  VI. Replacement housing payments. The
 displacing agency shall keep a record of the
 following information concerning each relo-
 cation housing payment made in connection
 with the project:
   (1) The date application for  payment  is
 received.
   (2) The date application for  payment  is
 approved or rejected.
  (3) Data  substantiating the  amount of
 payment.
  J4) If replacement housing is purchased,
a copy  of the closing statement indicating
 the purchase price, down payment, and inci-
 dental expenses.
  (5) A copy of the Truth in Lending State-
 ment, or other data, including computations,
 that  confirm  any increased interest  pay-
 ment.
                APPENDIX B
DIRECTORY—REGIONAL AND  AREA  OFFICES, DE-
  PARTMENT OF HOUSING  AND URBAN DEVELOP-
  MENT
                 Region I
Regional Administrator James J. Barry, Rm.
  800, John  F. Kennedy  Federal Building,
  Boston, Massachusetts 02203.  Tel.  (617)
  223-4066.
Area offices:
  Connecticut, Hartford 06105:  999 Asylum
    Avenue, Tel. (203) 244-3638.
  Massachusetts,  Boston  02114:  Bulflnch
    Building,  15 New  Chardon Street, Tel.
    (617) 223-4111.
  New Hampshire,  Manchester 03101: Davi-
    son Building, 1230 Elm Street, Tel. (603)
    669-7681.
                Region  II

Regional Administrator S. William Green, 26
  Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007,
  Tel. (212) 264-8068.
Area offices:
  New Jersey,  Camden  08103:  The  Parkade
    Building,  519 Federal Street, Tel.  (609)
    963-2301.
  New  Jersey,  Newark   07102:  Gateway  1
    Building,  Raymond  Plaza.  Tel.  (201)
    645-3010.
  New York,  Buffalo 14202. Grant Building,
    560  Main Street, Tel. (716) 842-3510.
  New York, New York  10007:  120  Church
    Street, Tel. (212) 264-0522.
Commonwealth area office:
  Puerto Rico, San J-ir.n 00936.  Post Office
    Box 3869 GPO, 255 Ponce de Leon  Ave-
    nue, Hato  Rey. Puerto Rico, FTS  Tel.
    (Dial  Code 106—ask operator for listed
    number 622-020]), Commercial Number:
    622-0201.
                 Region 111

 Regional  Administrator Theodore B. Robb,
   Curtis Building, 6th and Walnut  Streets,
   Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania  19106,  Tel.
   (215) 597-2560.
 Area offices:
   District  of  Columbia, Washington  20005:
     7310 L Street, N.W., Tel. (202) 382-4855.
   Maryland, Baltimore 21201: Federal Build-
     ing,  31   Hopkins  Plaza,  Tel.  (301)
     962-2121
   Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia 19106:  Curtis
     Building,  625 Walnut  Street,  Tel (215)
     597-2358.
   Pennsylvania,   Pittsburgh  15222:  1000
     Liberty Avenue, Tel. (412) 644-2802.
   Virginia, Richmond 23240: 701 East Frank-
     lin Street,  Post  Office  Box  10011.  Tel.
     (703)  782-2721.
                 Region IV

 Regional  Administrator Edward H.  Baxter,
   Peachtree-Seventh  Building.  50  Seventh
   Street,  N.E., Atlanta,  Georgia  30323.  Tel.
   (404) 526-5585
 Area offices:
   Alabama. Birmingham 35233  Dame: Bvnld-
     mg, 15 South 20th  Street, Tel. (205)
     325-3264
   Florida,  Jacksonville  32204:  Peninsular
    Plaza,  661  Riverside Avenue. Tel. (904)
    791-2626.
  Georgia,  Atlanta 30303  Peachtree  Center
    Building, 230 Peachtree Street. N.W.. Tel.
     (404)  526-4576
  Kentucky, Louisville 40202. Children's Hos-
    pital Foundation Bldg , 601 South Floyd
    Street, Tel. (502) 582-5254.
  Mississippi, Jackson  39202: 301 North  La-
    mar Street.  FTS  Tel.   (601)  948-2267,
    Commercial Number: 948-7821.
  North  Carolina.  Greensboro 27408:  2309
    West  Cone Boulevard. Northwest Plaza,
    FTS Tel.   (919)  275-9361,  Commercial
    Number 275-9111.
   South  Carolina, Columbia  29201:  1801
    Main  Street, Jefferson  Square. FTS Tel.
     (803)   253-3535,  Commercial  Number:
    253-8371.
  Tennessee,  Knoxville 37919: One  North-
    shore  Building,  1111 Northshore  Drive.
    FTS Tel.   (615)  524-4011,  Commercial
    Number- 584-8527.

                 Region V

Regional Administrator George  J. Vavoxilis,
  300 South Wacker Drive,  Chicago, Illinois
  60606, Tel (312) 353-5680.
Area offices:
  Illinois,  Chicago 60602: 17 North Dearborn
    Street, Tel. (312) 353-7660.
  Indiana,  Indianapolis 46205: Willowbrook
    5 Building, 4720 Kmgsway Drive, Tel.
    (317)  633-7188
  Michigan, Detroit 48226:  5th  Floor, First
    National Building,  660  Woodward Ave-
    nue, Tel. (313) 226-7900.
  Minnesota,  Minneapolls-St  Paul:  Griggs-
    Midway Building,  1821  University Ave-
    nue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104, Tel. (612)
    725-4801.
  Ohio. Columbus 43215: 60 East Main Street,
    Tel (614) 469 5737.
   Wisconsin, Milwaukee 53203: 744 North 4th
     Street, FTS Tel.  (414)  224-3214,  Com-
     mercial Number: 272-8600.

                 Region VI

 Regional Administrator Richard L. Morgan,
   Federal  Building, 810 Taylor Street, Fort
   Worth, Texas 76102, Tel. (817) 334-2867.
 Area offices:
   Arkansas, Little Rock 72201: Union Na-
     tional Bank  Building, One Union Na-
     tional Plaza, FTS Tel.  (601)  372-5401,
     Commercial Number: 372-4361.
   Louisiana, New Orleans 70113: Plaza Tower,
     1001 Howard Avenue, Tel. (604) 627-2062.
   Oklahoma, Oklahoma City 73102: 301 North
     Hudson Street, FTS Tel.  (405) 231-4891,
     Commercial Number: 231-4181.
   Texas, Dallas 75202: Room 14-A-18, New
     Dallas Federal Building,  1100 Commerce
     Street, Tel. (214) 749-2158.
   Texas. San Antonio 78285: Kallison Build-
     Ing, 410 South Main  Avenue, Post Of-
     fice Box 9163, FTS  Tel. (512) 225-4665,
     Commercial Number: 225-5511.

                 Region VII
 Regional  Administrator  Harry  I  Sharrott
   (Acting), Room 300 Federal Office Building.
   911  Walnut  Street,  Kansas'City. Missouri
   64106, Tel   (816)  374-2661.
 Area offices:
   Kansas,  Kansas City 66117: One Gateway
     Center. 5th and State Streets. Post Of-
     fice Box  1339, Tel. (816)  374-4355.
   Missouri, St. Louis 63101:  210 North  12th
     Street, Tel. (314) 622-4760.
   Nebraska, Omaha 68106: Univac Building,
     7100 West  Center Road,  Tel. (402) 221-
     4221.

                Region VIII

 Regional Administrator Robert C. Rosenheim,
   Federal Building,  1961 Stout Street,  Den-
   ver.  Colorado 80202, Tel. (303) 837-4881.

                 Region IX

Regional Administrator Robert H. Balda. 450
   Golden Gate Avenue, Post Office Box 36003,
   San  Francisco, California 94102. Tel. (415)
   556-4752.
 Area offices:
   California,  Los  Angeles 90057:  2500  Wil-
    shire Boulevard, Tel. (213)  688-5127.
   California, San Francisco 94111:  1 Embar-
    cadero Center,  Suite  1600,  Tel.  (415)
     556-2238.

                 Region X

Regional Administrator  Oscar P.  Pederson,
  Arcade Plaza Building, 1321 Second  Ave-
  nue, Seattle,  Washington 98101,  Tel. (206)
   442-5415.
Area offices:
  Oregon, Portland 97204: 520 Southwest 6th
    Avenue, Tel. (603) 226-2726.
  Washington,  Seattle 98101:  Arcade-Plaza
    Building, 1321 Second Avenue, Tel. (206)
    442-7456.
   |FR Doc.74-6100 Filed  3-18-74;8:45 am]
                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO.  54—TUESDAY, MARCH 19,  1974
-------
 III. 4

 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1975

 WASHINGTON, D.C.

 Volume 40 • Number 24

 PART II
 DEPARTMENT OF
   THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF
    HISTORIC PLACES

 Advisory Council on
 Historic  Preservation

   Protection of Properties
  on the National Register;
  Procedures for Compliance
-------
 5242
                NOTICES
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
           National Park Service
   NATIONAL REGISTER  OF HISTORIC
                 PLACES
  Pursuant to the National Historic Pres-
ervation  Act of 1966  (80 Stat.  915,  16
UJS.C. 470)  the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior has under-
taken steps to Implement the purposes
of that act through: (1) Expansion of the
National  Register of Historic Places, (2)
initiating a program of grants-in-aid for
historic preservation, and (3) adoption
of procedures and  criteria for  further-
ing  the  Nation's  historic  preservation
program.
  It Is the purpose of this notice, through
publication of information and materials
included  herein,  to apprise the public,
as well  as governmental agencies,  as-
sociations, and all other organizations
and individuals  interested  in  historic
preservation of the implementing actions
that have been taken in order that there
will be a greater awareness of the means
by which properties of  State and local
historical significance may be nominated
for placement in the National  Register
and of the  criteria used in evaluating
the properties. The notice includes a list
of the properties  included in the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places through
December 31,1974.
            RUSSELL E. DICKENSON,
                    Deputy Director,
                National Park Service.
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
THE   NATIONAL  REGISTER  OF  HISTORIC
PLACES AND PROCEDURES FOR REGISTRATION
  A. Introduction. In the National His-
toric  Preservation Act of 1966,  80 Stat.
915, 16 TJ.S.C. 470, the  Congress found
and declared:
  (a)  That the spirit and direction of the
Nation are founded  upon and reflected In
Ita historic past;
  (b) That the historical and cultural foun-
dations of the Nation should be preserved
as a living part of our community life  and
development  in  order  to  give  a  sense of
orientation to the American people.
  (c)  That, In the face of ever-increas.ng
extensions of urban centers, highways,  and
residential, commercial, and Industrial  de-
velopments, the  present governmental  and
nongovernmental historic preservation pro-
grams and activities are inadequate to insure
future generations  a genuine opportunity
to appreciate and enjoy the rich heritage of
our Nation; and
  (d) That, although the major burdens of
historic preservation have been borne  and
major  efforts Initiated by private  agencies
and individuals, and both should continue
to play a vital role, it is nevertheless neces-
sary and  appropriate for the Federal Gov-
ernment  to accelerate its historic preser-
vation programs  and activities,  to give
maximum  encouragement  to agencies  and
Individuals  undertaking  preservation   by
private means, and to assist State  and local
governments  and  the  National  Trust for
Historic Preservation In the United  States
to expand and accelerate their historic pres-
ervation programs  and activities.
  In order to accomplish these purposes,
the National Historic Preservation Act
provided for three  significant Innova-
tions: An expanded National Register of
Historic Places, a program of grants-in-
aid  for  historic preservation, and an
Advisory Council on Historic  Preserva-
tion  empowered to  comment upon all
undertakings licensed,  assisted, or car-
ried out by the Federal Government that
have an effect upon properties in  the
National Register.
  Official notice is hereby  given  to the
public and government agencies  of the
opportunities and restrictions provided
by  the  National Historic  Preservation
Act. Detailed administrative procedures
for the  program may  be found  in the
manuals, "Historic Preservation Grants-
In-Aid:  Policies and Procedures," and
"The National Register Program, Volume
2: How to Complete National Register
Forms"  January 1975 (U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service,
Washington,  D.C.).  (Volume  1,  "State
and Federal Guidelines" to be published
later in  1975.)
  B.  Expanding  the National Register
of Historic Places. The Act  authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior  to expand
and maintain a national register of dis-
tricts, sites,  buildings, structures, and
objects significant in American history,
architecture,  archeology,  and culture.
Previously,  the  National Register  in-
cluded only nationally  significant prop-
erties that are historical or archeologi-
cal units of the National Park  System or
that  have been declared eligible  for
designation as National Historic  Land-
marks. Because they must meet exacting
criteria  of national  significance, such
properties are few in number. The Na-
tional Historic Preservation Act of 1966
provides a means for States to nominate
properties of State  and  local  signifi-
cance for  placement  in  the National
Register.
  The following officials have been desig-
nated by their Governors to act as State
Historic Preservation Officers responsible
for State activities under the National
Historic Preservation Act:
   STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION  OFFICERS
                ALABAMA
Chairman, Alabama Historical Commission,
  Alabama Department of Archives and His-
  tory, Archives and History Building, Mont-
  gomery, Alabama 36104.
                 ALASKA
Director, Department of Natural Resources,
  Division of Parks, 323 East Fourth Avenue,
  Anchorage, Alaska 99601.
Director, State Parks Board, 1688 West Adams,
  Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
Director, Arkansas Department of Parks and
  Tourism, State Capitol, Boom 149, Little
  Bock, Arkansas 72201.
                CALIFORNIA

Director, Department of Parks & Becreatlon,
  State Resources Agency, P.O. Box  2390,
  Sacramento, California 95811.
                COLORADO
Chairman, State Historical Society, Colorado
  State Museum, 200 14th Avenue, Denver,
  Colorado 80203.
               CONNECTICUT

Director, Connecticut Historical Commission,
  59 South Prospect Street, Hartford,  Con-
  necticut 06106.

                DELAWARE

Director, Division of Historical and Cultural
  Affairs, Department of State, Dover, Dela-
  ware 19901.
                FLORIDA

Director, Division of Archives, History, and
  Records Management, Department of State,
  401 East Oalnes Street, Tallahassee, Florida
  32304.
                GEORGIA

Chief,  Georgia  Department of Natural Re-
  sources, 710 Trinity-Washington Building,
  270 Washington Street, S.W., Atlanta, Geor-
  gia 30334.
                 HAWAII

Chairman, Department of Land and Natural
  Resources, State  of Hawaii, P.O. Box 621,
  Honolulu, Hav.-ali 96809.

                  IDAHO

Director, Idaho  Historical Society, 610 North
  Julia Davis Drive, Boise, Idaho 83706.
Director, Department of Conservation, 602
  State Office Building, 400  South Spring
  Street, Springfield, Illinois 62706.

                 INDIANA

Director, Department of Natural Resources,
  State of Indiana, 608 State Office Building,
  Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.
Director, Division of Historic Preservation,
  B-13, MacLean Hall, Iowa City, Iowa 62242.

                 KANSAS

Executive Director, Kansas  State Historical
  Society, 120 West 10th  Street,  Topeka,
  Kansas 66612.

                KENTUCKY

Director, Kentucky Heritage Commission, 401
  Wapping  Street,   Frankfort,  Kentucky
  40601.
                LOUISIANA

Director, Department of Art, Historical and
  Cultural Preservation, Old State Capitol,
  Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801.

                 MAINE

Director, Maine Historical Preservation Com-
  mission,  31 Western Avenue,  Augusta,
  Maine 04330.
                MARYLAND

Director,  Maryland  Historical  Trust,  2626
  Rlva Road, Annapolis, Maryland 21401.

              MASSACHUSETTS

Secretary  of the  Commonwealth, Chairman,
  Massachusetts  Historical  Commission,  40
  Beacon  Street,  Boston,   Massachusetts
  02108.
                MICHIGAN

Director, Michigan History Division, Depart-
  ment of State,  Lansing, Michigan 48918.

               MINNESOTA

Director, Minnesota Historical  Society,  690
  Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 66101.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40,  NO. 24—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4,  1975
-------
                                                          NOTICES
                                                                              5243
               MISSISSIPPI

Director, State of Mississippi Department of
  Archives and History, P.O. Box 571, Jack-
  son, Mississippi 89308.

                MISSOURI

Director, Missouri State Park Board, P.O. Box
  176,1204 Jefferson Building, Jefferson City,
  Missouri 65101.

                MONTANA

Administrator,  Recreation and Parks  Divi-
  sion, Department of Pish and Game, State
  of  Montana, Mitchell Building,  Helena,
  Montana 59601.
Director, Nebraska State Historical Society,
  1600 B Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68501.

                 NEVADA

Administrator, Division  of State Parks,  301
  South  Fall  Street,  Carson City,  Nevada
  89701.
             NEW HAMPSHIRE

Commissioner, Department of Resources and
  Economic Development, P.O. Box 856, Con-
  cord, New Hampshire 03301.

               NEW JERSEY

Commissioner, Department of Environmental
  Protection, P.O. Box  1420, Trenton, New
  Jersey 08625.
               NEW MEXICO

State Historic Preservation  Officer, State
  Capitol, 403 Capitol Building, Santa  Pe,
  New Mexico 87501.

               NEW  YORK

Commissioner, Parks and Recreation, Room
  •03, South Swan Street Building, Albany,
  New York 13223.

             NORTH CAROLINA

Director, Division of  Archives and History,
  Department of  Cultural  Resources,  109
  East Jones Street, Raleigh, North Carolina
  37611.
              NORTH  DAKOTA

Superintendent, State Historical Society of
  North Dakota, Liberty Memorial Building,
  Bismarck, North Dakota 58501.
Director, Ohio Historical Society, Interstate
  #71 at 17th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43211.

                OKLAHOMA

State Historic Preservation Officer, 117  East
  Oklahoma Avenue, Route 1, Outtirle, Okla-
  homa 73044.
State Parks Superintendent, 300 State High-
  way Building, Salem, Oregon 97310.

              PENNSYLVANIA

Executive Director, Pennsylvania Historical
  and Museum Commission, Box 1026, Harrls-
  burg, Pennsylvania 17120.

              RHODE ISLAND

Director, Rhode Island Department of Com-
  munity Affairs,  150 Washington Street,
  Providence, Rhode Island 02903.

             SOUTH CAROLINA

Director, State Archives Department,  1430
  Senate Street, Columbia, South Carolina
  29211.
              SOUTH DAKOTA

Cultural Preservation Director, Department
  of Education and Cultural Affairs, Office of
  Cultural Preservation, State Capitol, Pierre,
  South  Dakota 67501.
Executive Director of the Tennessee Historical
  Commission,  170 Second  Avenue  North,
  Nashville, Tennessee 37301.
Executive Director, Texas  State  Historical
  Survey Committee, P.O. Box 12276, Capitol
  Station, Austin, Texas 78711.
Director, Division of State History, 603 East
  South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102.
                VERMONT
Director, Vermont Division of Historic Sites,
  Pavilion  Building,  Montpeller,  Vermont
  06602.
                 VIRGINIA
Executive Director,  Virginia Historic Land-
  marks Commission, 221 Governor Street,
  Richmond, Virginia 23219.
               WASHINGTON
Director, Washington State Parks and Recrea-
  tion Commission,  P.O. Box 1138, Olympla,
  Washington 98504.
               WEST VIRGINIA
State Historic  Preservation Officer, West Vir-
  ginia Antiquities  Commission, Old Moun-
  talnlalr, West Virginia University, Morgan-
  town, West Virginia 26606.
               WISCONSIN
Director, State Historical Society of Wiscon-
  sin,  816 State Street, Madison,  Wisconsin
  53706.
                WYOMING
Director, Wyoming  Recreation Commission,
  604 East 25th Street, Box 309,  Cheyenne,
  Wyoming 82001.
           DISTRICT  Or  COLUMBIA
Acting Director, Office of Housing it Commu-
  nity  Development, Room  112-A, District
  Building, 14th & E Streets NW, Washington,
  D.C. 20004.
             AMERICAN SAMOA
Executive Secretary, Environmental Quality
  Commission, Office of the  Governor, Pago
  Pago, American Samoa 96920.
       COMMONWEALTH Or PUERTO RICO
State Historic Preservation Officer, Institute
  of Puerto Rico Culture, Apartado 4184, San
  Juan, Puerto Rico 00905.
                  GUAM
Director, Department of Commerce, Govern-
  ment of Guam, P.O. Box 682, Agana, Guam
  96910.
             TRUST TERRITORY
Chief, Land Resources  Branch, Trust Terri-
  tory of the  Pacific Islands, Salpan, Marl-
  anas Islands 96960.
              VIRGIN ISLANDS
Planning Director,  Virgin Islands Planning
  Board, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Vir-
  gin Islands 00801.

  Under Executive 11593 agencies of the
Executive  branch of  the  government
shall: (1) Administer cultural properties
under  their  control, and  (2) Initiate
measures necessary to preserve, restore,
and  maintain  federally  owned  sites,
structures,  and objects of historical, ar-
chitectural,  and  archeological  signifi-
cance.
  The following are  the Federal repre-
sentatives responsible for implementing
this Executive Order:
        DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

Director, Division of Recreation, Forest Serv-
  ice, Department  of Agriculture, Washing-
  ton, D.C. 30250.

         DEPARTMENT Or COMMERCE

Deputy Director for Operations, Office of Ad-
  ministrative Services, Department of Com-
  merce, Washington, D.C. 20230.

          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Director,  Real Property and  Natural Re-
  sources Division, Office of the Assistant Sec-
  retary of Defense (Installations and Logis-
  tics), Washington, D.C. 20301.

   DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND
                WELFARE

Director, Office of Facilities Engineering, De-
  partment of Health,  Education, and Wel-
  fare, Washington, D.C. 20201.

     DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
              DEVELOPMENT

Assistant Secretary for  Community Planning
  and Development, Department of Housing
  and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
  20410.

       DEPARTMENT OF  THE INTERIOR

Deputy  Assistant  Secretary for  Fish and
  Wildlife and Parks, Department of the In-
  terior,  Washington, D.C. 20240.

          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Administrative Service  Program Staff, Office
  of Management and  Finance, Department
  of Justice,  Washington, D.C. 20580.

      DEPARTMENT  OF TRANSPORTATION

Community Affairs Specialist, Office of Con-
  sumer Affairs, Department of Transporta-
  tion, Washington, D.C. 20590.

      DEPARTMENT Or  THE TREASURY

Director of Administrative Programs, Depart-
  ment  of the Treasury, Washington, D.C.
  20220.
          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Publications  Editor, Appalachian  Regional
  Commission, 1666 Connecticut Avenue,
  NW., Washington, D.C. 20236.
Director, Data and Support Systems Division,
  Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
  ington, D.C. 20400.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commis-
  sion, Washington, D.C. 20554.
Advisor of the Chairman, Federal Power Com-
  mission, Washington, D.C. 20426.
Historian, Project Environment and Conser-
  vation,  Federal  Power Commission, 825
  North  Capitol  Street, Washington,  D.C.
  20426.
Historic Preservation Office, General Services
  Administration, Washington, D.C. 20405.
Chief,  Section of Administrative Services,
  Interstate Commerce Commission, Wash-
  ington, D.C. 20423.
Director, NASA History Program Office, Na-
  tional  Aeronautics and Space Administra-
  tion, Washington, D.C. 20546.
Landmarks  Coordinator,  National  Capital
  Planning Commission, 1325 G Street, N.W.,
  Washington, D.C. 20005.
Special  Assistant to the Director, National
  Science  Foundation,  Washington,  D.C.
  20650.
Administrator, Small Business Administra-
  tion, 1441 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
  20416.
Special  Assistant to the Secretary, Smith-
  sonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.
Director  of Reservoir Properties,  Tennessee
  Valley Authority, 530 New Sprankle Build-
  ing, Knoxvllle, Tennessee 37902.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 24—TUESDAY,  FEBRUARY 4, 1975
-------
5244
               NOTICES
Assistant for Economic and Community Af-
  fairs, Office of the  General Manager, Mall
  Station CA-311, U.S. Atomic Energy Com-
  mission, Washington, D.C. 20545.
Program Manager, Logistics and Engineering
  Department, U.S. Postal  Service, I/Enfant
  Plaza West, Washington, D.C. 20260.
Historian, Veterans Administration, 810 Ver-
  mont  Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
  20420.
Chief, Planning  and Reports, International
  Boundary and Water Commission,  United
  States and Mexico, 200 IBWC Building, 4110
  Rio Bravo, El Paso, Texas  79998.
  The State Historic Preservation Officer
is  responsible  for  the development and
implementation of a comprehensive State
Historic Preservation Plan, based clearly
on the State's history and established in
conformance with local,  State  and Fed-
eral  legislation and mechanisms, and
approved  by the Secretary  of the  In-
terior. The State  Historic Preservation
Officer supervises a professional staff In
conducting a statewide survey of historic
resources addressed to every aspect of the
State's history. Prom this continuing in-
ventory of historic resources, an integral
part of the State Historic Preservation
Plan, the State Historic Preservation Of-
ficer may nominate properties for inclu-
sion  in the National Register of Historic
Places. The nominated properties which
are approved by the National Park Serv-
ice are entered in the National Register
of Historic Places by the Director, Office
of Archeology and Historic Preservation,
National Park Service.
  The following  criteria shall be used
by the States in evaluating properties for
nomination to  the  National  Register of
Historic Places and by the National Park
Service in reviewing State nominations.

National Register Criteria of Evaluation
  The quality of significance in  Ameri-
can  history,  architecture,  archeology,
and  culture is present in districts, sites,
buildings,  structures, and  objects  of
State and local importance that  possess
Integrity  of  location  design, setting,
materials, workmanship,  feeling, and
association, and:
  1.  That are associated with   events
that have made a significant  contribu-
tion to the broad patterns of our history;
or
  2.  That are  associated with the lives
of persons significant in our past; or
  3.  That embody  the distinctive char-
acteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction,  or that represent the
work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a signifi-
cant and distinguishable entity  whose
components may lack individual distinc-
tion; or
   4. That have yielded,  or may be likely
to yield,  information important  in pre-
history or history.
   Criteria  considerations.  Ordinarily
cemeteries, birthplaces,  or graves  of
historical figures,  properties owned by
religious  institutions or used for reli-
gious purposes, structures that  have been
moved from their original locations, re-
constructed historic buildings, proper-
ties  primarily commemorative  in  na-
ture, and properties that have achieved
significance within the past  50 years
shall  not be considered eligible for the
National Register. However, such prop-
erties will qualify if they  are integral
parts of districts that do meet the cri-
teria  or if they fall within the following
categories:
  (a) A religious property depriving pri-
mary  significance   from  architectural
or  artistic  distinction  or   historical
importance.
  (b) A building or structure removed
from  its original location  but which is
significant  primarily  for  architectural
value, or which is  the surviving  struc-
ture most importantly associated with a
historic person or event.
  (c) A birthplace or grave of a histori-
cal  figure of outstanding importance If
there is  no appropriate site or building
directly  associated  with his  productive
life.
  (d) A cemetery which derives its pri-
mary significance from graves of persons
of  transcendent  importance, from age,
from  distinctive design features, or from
association  with historic events.
  (e) A reconstructed building when ac-
curately executed in a suitable environ-
ment  and   presented  In  a  dignified
manner  as part of  a restoration master
plan, and when no other building or
structure with the same association has
survived.
  (f) A property primarily commemora-
tive in intent if design, age, tradition, or
symbolic  value has  Invested  it with its
own historical significance.
  (g) A property achieving significance
within the past 50 years if it is of excep-
tional importance.
  C.  Grants  for historic  preservation.
The National Historic Preservation Act
also authorizes a program of grants-m-
aid to States for comprehensive state-
wide  historic site surveys and preserva-
tion plans. Grants are also authorized to
States, local governments,  private orga-
nizations, and individuals  for preserva-
tion projects in accordance with an ap-
proved  statewide plan. All grants  are
made through the States. The State Liai-
son Officer may then distribute the funds
to  other approved  public  and  private
recipients. Funds may be used for acqui-
sition, protection, rehabilitation, restora-
tion,  and reconstruction of properties In-
cluded in the National Register of His-
toric Places.
     ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
             PRESERVATION
    Procedures for The Protection of
    Historic and Cultural Properties
   Properties included in, or eligible for,
 Inclusion in the  National  Register are
 afforded protection under  the National
 Historic Preservation Act  of  1966 and
 Executive  Order  11593,  May  13, 1971,
 "Protection  and  Enhancement  of the
 Cultural  Environment."  The  Advisory
 Council on Historic Preservation has
 prescribed procedures for Federal agen-
 cies to follow.  In accordance with these
 authorities these "Procedures for Pro-
 tection of Historic  and Cultural Prop-
 erties" were published  in the FEDERAL
 REGISTER of January 25,  1974  (39 FR
3366),  and had been codified in 36 CFR
Part 800. These procedures are set forth
below:
Procedures for the Protection of Historic
  and Cultural Properties in Accordance
  With Section 106 of the National His-
  toric  Preservation  Act and Sections
  1(3)  and2(b) of Executive Order 11593
  800.1 Purpose  and authorities. The
National Historic Preservation  Act  of
1966 created the Advisory Council  on
Historic Preservation, an independent
agency  of  the Executive branch of the
Federal Government, to advise the Presi-
dent and Congress on matters involving
historic preservation. Its members are
the Secretary of the Interior, the Secre-
tary of Housing and Urban Development,
the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secre-
tary of Commerce, tl\p Attorney General,
the Secretary of Transportation, the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, the Administrator
of the General Services  Administration,
the Secretary of  the Smithsonian Insti-
tution,  the Chairman of the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, and 10
citizen members appointed by the Presi-
dent on the basis of their outstanding
service  in   the  field  of   historic
preservation.
  The Council reviews Federal, federally
assisted, and federally  licensed under-
takings affecting cultural properties as
defined herein, in accordance with the
following authorities:
  (a)  Section 106 of the National His-
toric Preservation Act.  Section  106 re-
quires that Federal,  federally  assisted,
and federally licensed undertakings af-
fecting properties included in  the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places be sub-
mitted to  the  Council  for review and
comment prior to the approval of any
such undertaking by the Federal agency.
  (b)  Section 1(3) of  Executive Order
11593, May 13,1971, "Protection and En-
hancement of  the Cultural  Environ-
ment." Section 1(3)  requires that Fed-
eral agencies, in consultation with the
Council, establish procedures regarding
the preservation and enhancement of
nonf ederally owned historic and cultural
properties in the  execution of their plans
and programs. After soliciting consulta-
tion with the Federal agencies, the Ad-
visory Council has adopted procedures,
set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.10,
to  achieve this  objective and Federal
agencies should fulfill their responsibili-
ties under section 1(3) by following these
procedures. The  Council further recom-
mends  that  Federal  agencies use  these
procedures as  a guide  in the  develop-
ment,  in consultation with the Council,
of their required  internal procedures.
  (c)  Section 2(b)  of  Executive Border
11593, May 13,1971, "Protection and En-
hancement  of  the  Cultural Environ-
ment." Federal agencies are required, by
section 2(a)  of the Executive Order, to
locate,  inventory, and nominate proper-
ties under  their jurisdiction or control to
the National Register. Until such  proc-
esses  are  complete,  Federal  agencies
must submit proposals for the  transfer,
sale, demolition, or substantial alteration
of federally owned properties eligible for
inclusion in the National Register to the
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40,  NO.  24—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4,  1975
-------
                                                       NOTICES
                                                                          5245
 Council for review and comment. Federal
 agencies must continue to comply with
 section  2(b)  review requirements,  even
 after the initial  Inventory is complete,
 when they obtain jurisdiction or control
 over additional properties that are eligi-
 ble for inclusion in the National Register
 or when properties under their jurisdic-
 tion or  control are found to be eligible
 for inclusion in  the National  Register
 subsequent to the initial inventory.
   800.2   Coordination with agency re-
 quirements under the National Environ-
 mental Policy Act. Section 101 (b) (4) of
 the National Environmental  Policy Act
 (NEPA)  declares that one objective of
 the national  environmental policy  is to
 "preserve important historic, cultural,
 and  natural aspects  of our national
 heritage and maintain,  wherever  pos-
 sible, an  environment^ which supports
 diversity  and  variety   of  individual
 choice." In order  to  meet this objective,
 the Advisory Council instructs  Federal
 agencies   to  coordinate  NEPA  com-
 pliance with the separate responsibilities
 of the  National  Historic Preservation
 Act and Executive Order 11593 to ensure
 that historic  and cultural resources are
 given proper  consideration in the prep-
 aration of environmental impact state-
 ments. Agency obligations pursuant to
 the National Historic Preservation  Act
 and Executive Order  11593 are independ-
 ent from NEPA  and must be complied
 with even when  an  environmental im-
 pact statement is not required. However,
 where both NEPA and the National  His-
 toric Preservation Act or Executive Or-
 der 11593 are applicable, the Council on
 Environmental Quality, in its  Guidelines
 for  the  Preparation of Environmental
 Impact Statements (40 CFR Part 1500),
 directs that compliance with section 102
 (2) (C) of NEPA  should,  to the extent
 possible, be combined with other  stat-
 utory obligations—such as the National
 Historic  Preservation Act and Executive
 Order 11593—to yield a single document
 which meets all applicable requirements.
 To achieve this objective, Federal agen-
 cies  should  undertake,  to the  fullest
 •extent  possible,  compliance  with  the
 procedures  set  forth below  whenever
 properties Included  in  or eligible  for
 inclusion in  the  National Register  are
 involved  in  a project to ensure  that
 obligations under  the National Historic
 Preservation Act  and Executive Order
 11593 are fulfilled  during the prepara-
 tion  of a draft  environmental  impact
 statement required under section 102(2)
 (C) of NEPA. The Advisory Council  rec-
 ommends that compliance with these
 procedures be undertaken at the earliest
stages of the  environmental  impact
 statement process to expedite review of
 the statement. Statements on projects
affecting properties included in or eligi-
 ble for inclusion in the National Register
should be sent directly to the Advisory
 Council for review. All  statements  in-
 volving historic,  architectural, archeo-
logical, or cultural resources, whether or
not Included in or eligible for Inclusion
 in the National Register, should be sub-
 mitted to the Department of Interior for
 review.
   800.3   Definitions. AS used  in  these
 procedures:
   (a) "National Historic  Preservation
 Act" means Public Law 89-665, approved
 October 15, 1966, an "Act to establish a
 program for  the preservation  of  addi-
 tional historic properties throughout the
 Nation and for other purposes," 80 Stat.
 915, 16 U.S.C. 470, as amended, 84 Stat.
 204 (1970) and 87 Stat.  139 (1973)  here-
 inafter referred to as "the Act."
   (b) "Executive Order" means Execu-
 tive  Order 11593, May  13,  1971,  "Pro-
 tection and Enhancement of  the Cul-
 tural  Environment," 36 FR  8921,  16
 U.S.C. 470.
   (c) "Undertaking" means  any Federal
 action, activity,  or program, or the  ap-
 proval, sanction, assistance, or support of
 any other action, activity or program,
 including but not limited to:
   (1) Recommendations or favorable re-
 ports relating to legislation, including re-
 quests for appropriations. The require-
 ment for following these procedures  ap-
 plies to  both:  Agency recommendations
 on their own proposals for legislation and
 agency reports  on  legislation  initiated
 elsewhere." In  the latter case  only  the
 agency which has primary responsibility
 for the subject matter involved will com-
 ply with these procedures.
   (2) New and continuing projects and
 program  activities:  directly  undertaken
 by Federal agencies;  or supported  in
 whole or in part through Federal con-
 tracts, grants, subsidies, loans,  or  other
 forms of funding assistance; or involv-
 ing a Federal lease, permit, license, cer-
 tificate, or other entitlement for use.
   (3) The making,  modification, or  es-
 tablishment of regulations,  rules,  pro-
 cedures, and policy.
   (d) "National  Register"  means the
 National  Register  of  Historic  Places,
 which is a register of  districts,  sites,
 buildings, structures, and objects, sig-
 nificant  in American history, architec-
 ture,  archeology, and  culture, main-
 tained by the Secretary of the Interior
 under authority  of  section 2(b) of the
 Historic Sites  Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666,
 16 U.S.C. 461)  and section 101(a) (1) of
 the National Historic Preservation Act.
 The National Register is published  in its
 entirety  in  the FEDERAL REGISTER  each
 year in February. Addenda are published
 on the first Tuesday of each month.
   (e)  "National   Register   property"
 means a district, site," building, structure,
 or  object included  in the  National
 Register.
   (f)  "Property eligible  for inclusion in
 the National Register"  means any dis-
 trict,  site, building, structure, or object
 which the Secretary of the Interior de-
 termines is likely to meet the National
 Register  Criteria. As these  determina-
 tions are made, a listing is published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER on the first Tues-
 day of each month,  as a supplement to
 the National Register.
   (g)  "Decision" means the  exer.cise of
 agency authority at any  stage of an un-
dertaking where  alterations  might  be
made in  the undertaking to modify  Its
impact   upon  historic   and   cultural
 properties.
   (h) "Agency Official" means the head
 of the Federal agency having  responsi-
 bility for  the undertaking  or a  sub-
 ordinate employee of the Federal agency
 to  whom  such  authority  has   been
 delegated.
   (i)  "Chairman" means the Chairman
 of  the  Advisory  Council on  Historic
 Preservation, or such member designated
 to act in his stead.
   (j)  "Executive  Director"  means  the
 Executive Director of the Advisory Coun-
 cil  on Historic Preservation  established
 by Section 205 of the Act, or his desig-
 nated representative.
   (k) "Stat3 Historic Preservation Offi-
 cer" means the official within each State,
 authorized by the State at the request of
 the Secretary of the Interior,  to act as
 liaison for purposes of implementing the
 Act, or his designated representative.
   (1)  "Secretary" means the Secretary
 of the Interior, or his designee author-
 ized to  carry  out  the responsibilities of
 the Secretary of  the  Interior  under
 Executive Order 11593.
   800.4  Agency   procedures.   At  the
 earliest  stage  of planning or considera-
 tion of  a proposed undertaking, includ-
 ing comprehensive or area-wide  plan-
 ning in which provision may  be  made
 for  an  undertaking or an undertaking
 may be proposed, the Agency Official
 shall take the following steps to comply
 with the requirements of section 106 of
 the National Historic  Preservation  Act
 and sections 1(3) and 2(b) of Executive
 Order 11593.
   (a)  Identification  of  resources.  As
 early as possible and in all cases prior to
 agency  decision concerning  an under-
 taking, the Agency Official shall identify
 properties located within the  area of the
 undertaking's  potential  environmental
 impact  that are included in or eligible
 for inclusion in the National  Register
   (1)  To identify properties included m
 the  National Register,  the Agency Offi-
 cial shall consult the National  Register.
 including monthly supplements.
   (2)  To identify properties  eligible for
 inclusion in the National Register,  the
 Agency  Official shall,  in  consultation
 with the appropriate State Historic Pres-
 ervation Officer, apply the National Reg-
 ister Criteria, set forth in 36 CFR 800.10.
 to  all properties  possessing  historical.
 architectural, archeological, or cultural
 value located within the area of the un-
 dertaking's  potential environmental im-
 pact. If  the Agency Official  determines
 that a  property  appears to meet  the
 Criteria, or if it is questionable whether
 the Criteria are met, the Agency Official
 shall request, in writing, an opinion from
 the  Secretary of the Interior respecting
 the property's  eligibility for inclusion in
 the National Register. The Secretary of
the Interior's opinion respecting the eligi-
 bility of a property for inclusion in the
 National Register shall  be conclusive for
 the purposes of these procedures.
  (b) Determination of effect. For each
property included in or eligible for inclu-
sion in the National Register  that is lo-
cated within the area of the  undertak-
ing's potential environmental impact, the
Agency Official, in consultation  with the
                               FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 40, NO. 24—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1975
-------
 5246
               NOTICES
State Historic Preservation Officer, shall
apply the Criteria of Effect, set forth In
36 CFR 800.8, to determine whether the
undertaking has an effect upon the prop-
erty.  Upon applying the Criteria  and
finding no effect,  the undertaking  may
proceed. The Agency Official shall keep
adequate documentation of a determina-
tion of no effect.
  (c) Effect  established.  Upon  finding
that the undertaking will have any effect
upon a property included in or eligible
for Inclusion in the National Register,
the Agency Official, in consultation with
the State Historic Preservation Officer,
shall apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect,
set forth in 36 CFR 800.9, to determine
whether the effect of th6 undertaking is
adverse.
  (d) Finding of no adverse effect. Upon
finding the effect not to be adverse; the
Agency Official  shall forward adequate
documentation of the determination, in-
cluding evidence of the views of the State
Historic Preservation Officer, to the Exec-
utive Director for review. Unless the Ex-
ecutive Director notes an objection to the
determination within 45 days after re-
ceipt of adequate documentation,  the
Agency Official  may  proceed with  the
undertaking.
  (e) Finding of  adverse  effect. Upon
finding the effect to be adverse or upon
notification that the Executive Director
does not accept a determination of no
adverse effect, the Agency Official shall:
(1) Request, in writing, the comments of
the Advisory  Council:  (2)  notify  the
State Historic Preservation Officer of this
request;  (3) prepare a preliminary  case
report; and (4) proceed with the consul-
tation process set forth In 36 CFR 800.5.
  (f)  Preliminary  case report. Upon re-
questing the comments  of the Advisory
Council, the Agency Official shall provide
the Executive Director and the State His-
toric Preservation Officer with a prelimi-
nary case report, containing all relevant
Information concerning the undertaking.
The Agency Official shall obtain such In-
formation and material from any appli-
cant, grants or other beneficiary involved
in the undertaking as may be required for
the proper evaluation of the undertaking,
its  effects,  and  alternate  courses  of
action.
  800.5   Consultation process—(a)  Re-
sponse to request  for comments. Upon
receipt of a request for Advisory Council
comments pursuant to 36  CFR 800.4(e),
the Executive Director shall acknowledge
the request and shall initiate the con-
sultation process.
  (b) On-site inspection. At the request
of the Agency Official, the State Historic
Preservation Officer, or the Executive Di-
rector, the  Agency Official shall conduct
an on-site inspection with the Executive
Director, the State Historic Preservation
Officer and such other representatives of
national, State, or local units of govern-
ment and public and private organiza-
tions that  the  consulting parties deem
appropriate.
  (c) Public  information  meeting. At
the request of  the Agency Official,  the
State  Historic  Preservation Officer,  or
the Executive Director, the Executive Di-
rector shall conduct a meeting open to
the public, where representatives of na-
tional. State, or local units of govern-
ment, representatives of public or private
organizations, and interested citizens can
receive information and  express  their
views on the undertaking, its  effects on
historic and cultural properties, and al-
ternate courses of  action. The  Agency
Official shall provide adequate facilities
for the meeting and shall afford appro-
priate notice to the public in advance of
the meeting.
  (d)  Consideration   of   alternatives.
Upon  review of the  pending  case and
subsequent to any on-site inspection and
any  public information  meeting,  the
Executive Director shall consult with the
Agency Official and State Historic Pres-
ervation Officer  to  determine whether
there is a feasible and  prudent alter-
native to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate
any adverse effect.
  (e) Avoidance of adverse effect. If the
Agency Official, the State Historic Pres-
ervation Officer, and the  Executive  Di-
rector select and unanimously agree upon
a  feasible and prudent  alternative  to
avoid the adverse effect of the under-
taking, they shall  execute a Memoran-
dum of Agreement acknowledging avoid-
ance  of  adverse effect. This  document
shall  be forwarded to the Chairman for
review pursuant to  36 CFR 800.6(a).
  (f)  Mitigation of adverse effect. If the
consulting parties are unable  to unani-
mously agree upon a feasible and pru-
dent alternative to avoid any adverse ef-
fect, the Executive Director shall con-
sult  with the Agency Official and  the
State Historic Preservation Officer to de-
termine whether there Is  a feasible and
prudent   alternative  to  satisfactorily
mitigate the adverse effect of the under-
taking. Upon finding and unanimously
agreeing to such  an  alternative, they
shall  execute a Memorandum  of Agree-
ment acknowledging satisfactory mitiga-
tion of adverse effect. This  document
shall  be forwarded to the Chairman for
review pursuant to 36 CFR 8006(a).
  (g)  Memorandum  of  Agreement.  It
shall  be the responsibility of the Execu-
tive Director to prepare each Memoran-
dum of Agreement required under these
procedures.  In preparation of such a
document the Executive Director may re-
quest the Agency  Official to  prepare a
proposal for inclusion in the Memoran-
dum,  detailing actions to be taken to
avoid or mitigate the adverse effect.
  (h)  Failure to avoid or mitigate ad-
verse effect. Upon the failure of consult-
ing parties to find and unanimously agree
upon  a feasible and prudent alternative
to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate the ad-
verse effect, the Executive Director shall
request the Chairman to schedule  the
undertaking  for  consideration  at  the
next  Council  meeting and notify  the
Agency Official of the request. Upon noti-
fication of the request, the Agency Offi-
cial shall delay further processing of the
undertaking until the Council has trans-
mitted Its comments or. the  Chairman
has given notice  that the undertaking
will  not  be considered  at a Council
meeting.
  800.6  Council  procedures—(a)  Re-
view  of Memorandum  of  Agreement.
Upon  receipt  of a  Memorandum  of
Agreement acknowledging avoidance of
adverse effect or  satisfactory mitigation
of adverse effect,  the Chairman shall in-
stitute a 30-day review period. Unless the
Chairman shall notify the Agency Offi-
cial that the matter has been placed on
the agenda for consideration at a Coun-
cil meeting, the memorandum shall  be-
come final:  (1)  Upon the expiration of
the 30-day review period with no action
taken; or (2) when signed by the Chair-
man. Memoranda duly  executed in  ac-
cordance  with these  procedures  shall
constitute the comments of the Advisory
Council. Notice of executed Memoranda
of Agreement shall be published in  the
FEDERAL REGISTER monthly.
  (b) Response to request for considera-
tion at Council meeting. Upon receipt of
a request from the Executive Director for
consideration of the proposed  undertak-
ing at a Council meeting, the  Chairman
shall determine whether or not the  un-
dertaking will be considered and notify
the Agency Official of  his decision. To
assist the Chairman in this determina-
tion, the Agency Official and the State
Historic Preservation Officer shall pro-
vide such reports and Information as may
be  required. If the  Chairman decides
against consideration at a Council meet-
ing, he will submit a written summary of
the undertaking and his decision to each
member of the Council. If any member of
the Council notes an objection to the de-
cision  within 15 days of the Chairman's
decision, the undertaking will be sched-
uled for consideration at a Council meet-
Ing. If the Council members have no ob-
jection, the Chairman  shall notify  the
Agency Official at the end of the 15-day
period that the undertaking may proceed.
  (c) Decision to consider the undertak-
ing. Upon determination that  the Coun-
cil  will  consider  an undertaking,  the
Chairman shall:  (1) Schedule the mat-
ter for consideration at a regular meet-
ing no less than  60 days from the date
the request was  received,  or  in excep-
tional cases, schedule the matter for con-
sideration In an unassembled or special
meeting; (2) notify the Agency Official
and the State Historic Preservation Offi-
cer of the date on which comments  will
be considered; and  (3)  authorize  the
Executive Director to  prepare a  case
report.
  (d)  Content of the case report.  For
purposes of arriving  at comments,  the
Advisory Council prescribes that certain
reports be made  available to It and  ac-
cepts reports and statements from other
Interested parties. Specific Informational
requirements  are  enumerated  below.
Generally, the requirements represent an
explication or elaboration of  principles
contained in the Criteria of Effect and in
the Criteria of Adverse Effect. The Coun-
cil notes, however,  that the Act recog-
nizes historical  and  cultural resources
should be preserved "as a living part of
our community life and development."
Consequently, In  arriving at final com-
ments, the Council considers those ele-
ments In an  undertaking that  have
relevance beyond historical and cultural
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 24—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4,  1975
-------
                                                       NOTICES
                                                                         5247
 concerns.  To assist It in weighing  the
 public Interest, the Council welcomes In-
 formation not only bearing upon physi-
 cal, sensory, or esthetic effects but also
 information concerning economic, social,
 and other benefits or detriments that will
 result from the  undertaking.
   (e) Elements of the case report. The
 report on which the  Council  relies  for
 comment shall consist of:
   (1) A report from the Executive Di-
 rector to  include a verification of the
 legal and historical status of the prop-
 erty; an assessment  of the  historical,
 architectural, archeologlcal,  or cultural
 significance of the property; a statement
 indicating the special value  of features
 to be most affected by  the undertaking;
 an evaluation of the total effect of the
 undertaking upon the property; a critical
 review  of  any  known   feasible  and
 prudent  alternatives; and recommenda-
 tions to  remove or mitigate the adverse
 effect;
  (2) A report from the Agency Official
 requesting comment to include a general
 discussion and chronology of  the  pro-
 posed undertaking; when appropriate, an
 account  of the steps  taken to comply
 with section 102(2) (A) of the National
 Environmental Policy  Act of  1969 (83
 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. 4321): an evaluation
 of the effect of the undertaking upon the
 property, with particular reference to the
 impact  on  the  historic,  architectural,
 archeological and cultural values; steps
 taken or proposed by the agency to take
 Into account, avoid, or  mitigate adverse
 effects of the undertaking; a thorough
 discussion of alternate courses of action;
 and, If applicable and available, a copy of
 the draft environmental statement pre-
 pared In compliance with section 102(2)
 (C) of the National Environmental Pol-
 icy Act of 1969;
  (3) A  report from any  other Federal
 agency having under  consideration an
 undertaking that will  concurrently  or
 ultimately  affect the property, Includ-
 ing a general description and chronology
 of that undertaking and discussion of the
 relation between  that  undertaking and
 the undertaking being considered by the
 Council;
  (4) A report from the State Historic
 Preservation Officer to include an assess-
 ment of the significance of the property;
 an identification  of features of special
 value; and evaluation of the effect of the
undertaking upon the  property and Its
specific  components;  an  evaluation  of
known alternate courses of action; a dis-
cussion of present or proposed participa-
 tion of State and local agencies or or-
 ganizations  in preserving or assisting in
 preserving  the property;  an indication
of the support or opposition of units of
government and public and private agen-
cies and organizations within the State;
and the recommendations of his office;
  (5)  A report by an applicant or poten-
 tial recipient when the  Council considers
 comments upon an application for a  con-
tract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form
 of funding assistance, or an application
for a Federal lease, permit, license, cer-
 tificate, or other entitlement for use. Ar-
rangements for  the  submission  and
 presentation of reports by applicants or
 potential  recipients  shall  be  made
 through the Agency Official having juris-
 diction In the matter; and
   (6)  Other  pertinent  reports,  state-
 ments,   correspondence,   transcripts,
 minutes, and documents received by the
 Council from any and all parties, public
 or private.  Reports submitted pursuant
 to this section should be received by the
 Council at  least two  weeks prior to a
 Council meeting.
   (f)  Coordination of case reports and
 statements. In., considerations  involving
 more  than  one  Federal  department,
 either directly or indirectly, the Agency
 Official requesting comment shall act as
 a coordinator In arranging for  a full as-
 sessment and  discussion  of all Inter-
 departmental facets of the problem and
 prepare a record of such coordination to
 be made available to the Council. At the
 request of the Council, the State Historic
 Preservation Officer shall notify appro-
 priate  governmental units  and public
 and private organizations  within  the
 State of the pending consideration of the
 undertaking by the Council, and coordi-
 nate the presentation of written state-
 ments to the Council.
   (g) Council meetings. The Council does
 not  hold formal  hearings to consider
 comments under these procedures. Two
 weeks notice shall be given, by publica-
 tion In the FEDERAL REGISTER, of all meet-
 ings involving Council review of Federal
 undertakings in accordance with  these
 procedures. Reports and statements will
 be presented to the Council in open ses-
 sion in accordance with  a prearranged
 agenda. Regular meetings of the Coun-
 cil generally occur on the first Wednes-
 day and Thursday of February, May, Au-
 gust, and November.
   (h)  Oral statements to  the Council. A
 schedule shall  provide for oral state-
 ments from the Executive Director; the
 referring  Agency  Official presently  or
 potentially Involved; the applicant  or
 potential  recipient, when appropriate;
 the State Historic Preservation Officer;
 and representatives of national, State, or
 local units of government and public and
 private organizations. Parties wishing to
 make oral remarks shall submit written
 statements of position in advance to the
 Executive Director.
   (1)  Comments by the  Council.  The
 comments of  the  Council, issued  after
 consideration  of an undertaking  at a
 Council meeting, shall take the form  of
 a three-part statement, including an in-
 troduction, findings, and a conclusion.
 The statement shall include notice to the
 Agency Official of  the report  required
 under  36 CFR 800.6U) of these proce-
 dures.  Comments shall be made to the
head of the Federal Agency requesting
 comment or having responsibility for the
 undertaking.  Immediately   thereafter,
 the comments of the Council will be for-
 warded to the  President  and the  Con-
 gress as a special report under authority
 of section 202(b) of the  Act and pub-
 lished  as soon as possible in the FEDERAL
REGISTER. Comments shall be available
 to the public upon receipt of the  com-
 ments  by  the  head  of  the Federal
 agency.
   (j) Report of  agency action in  re-
 tponse  to Council comments. When a
 final decision  on the  undertaking  is
 reached  by the  Federal  Agency, the
 Agency Official shall submit  a written
 report  to the Council containing a de-
 scription of actions taken by the Federal
 Agency subsequent to the Council's com-
 ments;  a description of actions taken
 by other parties pursuant to the actions
 of the Federal Agency; and the ultimate
 effect of such actions on  the property
 involved. The Council may request sup-
 plementary reports if the nature of the
 undertaking requires  them.
   (k) .Record of the Council. The records
 of the  Council shall  consist of a record
 of the proceedings at each  meeting, the
 case  report prepared by the  Executive
 Director, and  all other  reports,  state-
 ments,  transcripts, correspondence, and
 documents received.
   (1)  Continuiing review  jurisdiction.
 When the Council has commented upon
 an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6
 such as a comprehensive or area-wide
 plan that by its nature requires sub-
 sequent action  by the Federal Agency,
 the  Council will consider its comments
 or approval to extend only to the under-
 taking  as reviewed. The Agency Official
 shall ensure that subsequent action re-
 lated to the undertaking is  submitted to
 the  Council for review  in  accordance
 with 36 CFR 800.4(e)  of these proce-
 dures when that action is found to have
 an adverse effect on a property included
 in or eligible for inclusion in the Na-
 tional Register.
   800.7   Other powers of the Council—
 (a)   Comment  or report  upon  non-
 Federal undertaking. The  Council will
 exercise the broader advisory powers,
 vested by section  202(a)U) of the Act,
 to recommend measures concerning  a
 non-Federal  undertaking that will ad-
 versely  affect a  property Included to or
 eligible  for Inclusion in the  National
 Register; (1) Upon  request  from  the
 President of  the  United  States,  the
 President of  the U.S. Senate, or  the
 Speaker of the House  of Representatives.
 or (2) when agreed upon by a majority
 vote of  the members  of the  Council.
   (b) Comment or report upon Federal
 •undertaking  in  special  circumstances.
 The  Council will exercise its authority
 to comment to Federal agencies in cer-
 tain  special  situations  even  written
 notice that an undertaking will have an
 effect has not been  received. For ex-
 ample, the Council may choose to com-
 ment in situations where an objection is
 made to a Federal agency finding of "no
 effect."
   800.8   Criteria of  effect. A Federal,
 federally assisted, or federally licensed
 undertaking shall be  considered to have
 an effect on a National Register prop-
erty  or property eligible for inclusion in
the National  Register  (districts,  sites,
buildings, structures, and  objects, In-
cluding  their settings) when any condi-
tion  of  the undertaking causes or may
cause any change, beneficial or adverse,
in the quality of the historical, architec-
tural, archeological, or cultural charac-
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40,  NO.  24—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY  4, 1975
-------
 5248
                NOTICES
 ter that qualifies the property under the
National  Register Criteria.
  800.9  Criteria of adverse effect. Gen-
erally, adverse effects  occur under con-
ditions which include but are not limited
to:
  (a)  Destruction or alteration of all or
part of a property;
  (b)  Isolation from or alteration of  its
surrounding environment;
  (c)  Introduction of  visual, audible, or
atmospheric elements that  are out  of
character with the property or alter its
setting;
  (d)  Transfer  or sale  of a federally
owned property  without adequate con-
ditions or restrictions  regarding preser-
vation, maintenance, or  use;  and
  (e) Neglect of a property resulting in
its  deterioration or destruction.
  800.10  National Register Criteria, (a)
"National Register Criteria" means the
following criteria established by the Sec-
retary of the Interior for use in evaluat-
ing and  determining  the eligibility  of
properties for listing in the National Reg-
ister:
  The quality  of significance in Ameri-
can history, architecture,  archeology,
and culture is  present  in districts, sites,
buildings, structures,  and objects of State
and local importance that possess integ-
rity of location,  design, setting,  mate-
rials,  workmanship, feeling and associa-
tion and:
  (1) That  are  associated with  events
that have made a significant  contribu-
tion to the broad patterns of our history;
or
  (2) That are associated  with the lives
of persons significant in our past; or
  (3) That embody the distinctive char-
acteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work
of a master, or that possess high artistic
values,  or that  represent  a significant
and distinguishable  entity whose com-
ponents may lack individual distinction;
or
   (4)  That have yielded, or  may   be
likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
  (b)  Criteria considerations. Ordinarily
cemeteries, birthplaces, or  graves of his-
torical figures, properties owned by reli-
gious institutions  or used for  religious
purposes,  structures  that  have  been
moved from their original locations,  re-
constructed historic buildings, properties
primarily commemorative in nature, and
properties  that  have  achieved signifi-
cance within the past  50 years shall  not
be  considered  eligible  for the  National
Register.  However, such properties will
qualify if they are integral parts of dis-
tricts that do meet the criteria or if they
fall within the following categories:
   (1)  A religious  property deriving pri-
mary significance from architectural or
 artistic distinction or historical Impor-
tance;
   (2)  A  building  or structure removed
from Its  original  location but  which is
the surviving structure most Importantly
associated  with  a  historic  person  or
event;
   (3)  A birthplace or  grave of a histori-
cal figure of outstanding  importance if
there is no appropriate site or building
directly associated with his  productive
life;
   (4)  A cemetery which derives its pri-
mary significance from graves  of per-
sons of transcendent importance, from
age, from distinctive design features, or
from association with  historic  events;
   (5) A reconstructed building when ac-
curately executed in a suitable environ-
ment and presented in a dignified man-
ner as part of a restoration master plan,
and when no other building or structure
with the same association .has survived;
   (6) A property primarily commemora-
tive in intent if design, age, tradition, or
symbolic  value  has invested it with its
own historical significance; or
   (7) A property achieving significance
within the past 50 years if it is of excep-
tional importance.
  The following properties were listed on
the National Register as of December 31,
1974. Those which  are marked  by an
asterisk have been designated  National
Historic Landmarks  by the Secretary of
the Interior.

      NATIONAL REGISTER ENTRIES

                Alabama
             Autauga County

Pratlvllle vicinity,  Whittaker, Jack. House,
  S of Prattville off AL, 14 (10-28-74).

             Baldwin County

Bridgehead vicinity, Blakley, north of Bridge-
  head  (6-26-74).
Casque vicinity, 'Fort Morgan, western ter-
  minus of Alabama 180.
Stockton  vicinity,  Battle  Creek  Indian
  Mounds, approximately  7 miles west or
  Stockton (12-2-74).
Tensaw vicinity, Fort Minis  Site, sec. 46 K. 2
  E..T.3N.
             Barbour County

Clayton, Miller-Martin Town  House, Louis-
  ville Avenue (12-16-74).
Clayton, Petty-Roberts-Beatty House, (Octa-
  gon House). 103 North Midway (1-21-74).
Eufaula, Bray-Barron  Home, North Eufaula
  Avenue.
Eufaula,  Cato  House, 823  West  Harbour
  Street.
Eufaula, Drewry-Mitchell-Moorer House, 640
  North Eufaula Avenue.
Eufaula, Fendali Hall,  Barbour Street.
Eufaula, Kendall Manor,  534 West Broad
  Street.
Eufaula. Kiels-McNab-Doughtic  House, Bar-
  bour  Street.
Eufaula, Lore Historic District, > bounded by
  Barbour Street on the south, Eufaula Ave-
  nue on the west, Browder  Street on the
  north and Livingston Street  on the east
  (12-12-73).
Eufaula,  McNab  Bank   Building,  Broad
  Street.
Eufaula,  SheppaTd  Cottage, East Barbour
  Street.
Eufaula, Shorter Mansion, 340 North Eufaula
  Avenue.
Eufaula, Sparks, Governor, House (H. C. Hart
  House), 267 Broad Street.
Eufaula,  The Tavern  (River Tavern), 106
  Riverside Drive.
Eufaula, Wellborn (Welborn) House, Living-
  ston Avenue.

               Bibb County

Brierfield, Montebrier.
Brlerfleld vicinity,  Brierfteld Furnace,  west
  of Brlerfleld (11-20-74).
             Blount County

Oneonta vicinity, Horton Mill Covered Bridge,
  5 miles north of Oneonta on Route 3.

             Calhoun County

Anniston, Anniston Inn Kitchen, 130 west
  16th Street.
Coldwater, Coldwater Creek Covered Bridge,
  spans Coldwater Creek 0.6 mile from 1-20
  (also In Talladega County).
Jacksonville,  Francis,  Dr.  J. C.,  Office, 100
  Oayle Street.

            Chambers County

LaPayette,  Oliver, Ernest  McCarty, House,
  North LaFayette Street (U.S. 431) (1-21-
  14).
             Cherokee County

Cedar  Bluff vicinity,  Cornwall  Furnace,  2
  miles north of Cedar Bluff.

              Clay County

Ashland, Black; Hugo, House, South Second
  Street East (Ala. 77)  (10-9-73).

             Cleburne County

Edwardsvllle vicinity. Shoal Creek Church, 4
  mile northwest of Edwardsvllle on Forest
  Service Road 653 In Talladega National
  Forest (12-4-74).

              Coffee County

Elba, Coffee County Courthouse, Courthouse
  Square.
Enterprise, Boll Weevil Monument, Intersec-
  tion  of Main and College Streets.
Enterprise,  Seaboard Coastline Depot, Rail-
  road and West College (8-7-74).

             Colbert County

•Barton Hall.
Florence vicinity, 'Wilson  Dam, Tennessee
  River, on Alabama 133 (also in Lauderdale
  County).
Lelghton vicinity, La Grange Rock Shelter,
  southwest of Lelghton (6-13-74).
Tuscumbla,   Colbert  County  Courthouse
  Square Historic District.
Tuscumbla, Ivy Green (Helen Keller Birth-
  place) , 300  West North Common.

              Coosa County

Rockford,  Coosa County  Jail,  off Alabama
  23 (6-2O-74).

            Covinpton County

Opp, Shepard, William T., House, Pcley Road
  (8-14-73).
             Cullman County

Cullman vicinity, Clarkson Bridge, west of
  Cullman off County Road 11 (6-26-74).

              Dale County

Newton, Oates-Reynotds Memorial Building,
  Dates Street (6-13-74).

              Dallas County

Selma,  Morgan,  John  Tyler, House,  719
  Tremont.
Selman, Sturdivant Hall  (Watts-Parkman-
  Gillman House), 713 Mabry Street.
Selma, Water Avenue Historic District, Water
  Avenue.
Selma  vicinity, Cahaba,  11 miles southwest
  of Selma, at Junction of Cahaba and Ala-
  bama Rivers.

             De Kalb County

Port Payne, Fort Payne Opera  House, 510
  road  Passenger  Depot,  Northeast Fifth
  Street.
Fort Payne, Forte Payne Opera House, 510
  Oault Avenue. North.
                                 FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 24—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1975
-------
                     III.  5

             RUIES AND  REGULATIONS                                      37367
                                                  Title 34—Government Management
                                               CHAPTER II—OFFICE OF FEDERAL MAN-
                                                 AGEMENT POLICY, GENERAL SERVICES
                                                 ADMINISTRATION
                                                SUBCHAPTER D—PROPERTY MANAQEMENT
                                               PART  233—GUIDELINES  FOR  AGENCY
                                                 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNIFORM
                                                 RELOCATION  ASSISTANCE AND REAL
                                                 PROPERTY   ACQUISITION  POLICIES
                                                 ACT  OF 1970,  PUBLIC  LAW  91-646
                                                 (FMC 74-8)
                                                 This document converts and  revises
                                               Office of Management and Budget Cir-
                                               cular A-103 into a General Services Ad-
                                               ministration Federal Management Cir-
                                               cular  (FMC 74-8) in  accordance with
                                               Executive Order  11717, the President's
                                               Memorandum  of  September 6, 1973, to
                                               the heads of  departments and agencies
                                               on the subject of the Act, and Office of
                                               Management and Budget Bulletin 74-4.
                                               which transferred certain Office of Man-
                                               agement and Budget responsibilities to
                                               the General Services Administration.
                                                 FMC 74-*.  dated October 4.  1074.
                                               transmits guidelines to be followed by
                                               departments and  agencies for the devel-
                                               opment of regulations and procedures for
                                               implementing  the Uniform Relocation
                                               Assistance and Real Property Acquisi-
                                               tion Policies Act Of 1970. Pub. L.  91-646.
                                                 Part 233, Guidelines for agency imple-
                                               mentation of the Uniform Relocation As-
                                               sistance and Real Property Acquisition
                                               Policies Act of 1970, Pub.  L. 91-646,  is
                                               udded to 34 CFR Chapter n to  read as
                                               .set forth below.

                                                 Effective date. This regulation is effec-
                                               tive October 4, 1974.
                                                 Dated: October 4,1974.
                                                               ARTHUR F. SAMPSON,
                                                   Administrator of General Services.
                                               HOC.
                                               •.':« 1  Purpose.
                                               «;t3.2  Supersession.
                                               v;:t3.3  Authority.
                                               2:tu.4  Intent.
                                               233.5  Scope.
                                               2:13.0  Policies.
                                               233.7  Responsibilities.
                                               •233 8  Reporting requirement.
                                               233. tt  Inquiries.

                                                 AUTHORITY:   Executive  Order  11717 and
                                               President's Memorandum of September  6,
                                                1H73.  to the  head* of  departments find
                                               agencies. Subject:  The Uniform Relocation
                                               AasUtance and Real  Property Acquisition
                                               Policies Act of 1070.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 39. NO. 204—MONDAY, OCTOBER 21.  1974
-------
37368
     RULES AND REGULATION}
g 233.1
  Thte part transmit* revtecd guidelines
(Appendix A)  to be followed by depart-
mcnU and agencUsB for developing reg-
ulations and procedures  to implement
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real  Property  Acquisition  Policies Act
of 1970, Hereinafter referred to as the
Act.
§ 233.2  SupcracMion.
  The guidelines  in Appendix A super-
sede the guidelines Issued by the Office of
Management  and Budget Circular No.
A-103, dated May l. 1972. Appendix B la
a summary  of the major  changes be-
tween the  revised guidelines and the
guidelines Issued by Circular No. A-103.
§ 233.3  Authority.
  The  revised guidelines are  promul-
gated pursuant to Executive Order 11717,
May 9,  1973, and  the President's Memo-
randum of September 6, 1973, to the
heads of departments and agencies on
the subject of the Act. A  copy of the
President's  Memorandum  of Septem-
ber e. 1973, Is included as Appendix C.1
§ 233.4  Intent.
  The Intent of this part and the revised
guidelines  Is to provide for greater uni-
formity  among Federal agencies in the
administration of the Act.
§ 233.5  Scope.
  This  part applies  to all  programs  or
projects of a Federal agency which In-
volve the acquisition of real property or
the displacement of people, businesses, or
farm operations. The part also applies to
those  federally  assisted  programs  or
projects conducted by a State agency, as
the term is defined in the Act, which in-
volve the acquisition of real property or
cause the  displacement of people, busi-
nesses,  or  farm  operations. The geo-
graphical  coverage includes the several
States of the United States, the District
of  Columbia,  the  Commonwealth  of
Puerto Rico, any territorial possession of
the United States, the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands, and any political sub-
division thereof.
§ 233.6   Policies
  The policies outlined In the guidelines
are based on the provisions of the Act.
   (a) Uniform relocation assistance pol-
irini.  The Act specifics  that  Federal
agencies involved in the  administration
or Federal or federally assisted programs
resulting In the displacement of persons
iixall provide specific relocation services
ar.d payments to  aid such persons. Serv-
!cvs and payments within  the scope of
the Act shall  be  provided in a uniform,
fitir. and equitable manner to assure that
persons displaced by  Federal and fed-
erally assisted projects do not suffer dis-
proportionate  injuries as a result of proj-
ects Intended for the benefit of the public
as a whole.
   
-------
                                                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                               37369
with the President's memorandum of Janu-
ary 4. 1971. They alto address tboM problem
areas considered by the Relocation Assistance
Implementation Commute* (BAIO) since the
Imuance of OMB Circular A-103. May 1. 1973.
In the  event of any conflict between theee
guideline*  and the provisions of the Act, or
any other applicable law, the statutory pro-
vision*  are controlling.
  13  General consideration*, a.  In devel-
oping regulations  and  procedures under the
Act and those  guideline*,  agencle* should
consider:
  (I) House Report  No. 01-1886 of December
  (1) House Report  No. 91-18M of December
2, 1070. a report to accompany 8.1,  Com-
mittee on Public Works. House of Represent-
atives, eist Congress, 2nd Session: and
  (3) Provisions of other applicable law, In-
cluding Title  VI of  the  Civil Rights  Act of
1904.  Title vm of  the ClTll Rights  Act of
1008,  and good  faith and reasonableness.
  b. The Act  shall  be  applied  and admin-
istered  to  promote  Its  underlying purposes
and policies.
  o. Agencies shall instruct officials respon-
sible for programs under this Act that:
  (1) A written notice of displacement must
he given to each Individual, famfly business.
or farm operation  to be displaced. The notice
•hall be served personally or by certified (or
registered) first-class mall;
  (2) In order to qualify for benefits under
Title  II of the Act as  a displaced person.
either ot two conditions must be fulfilled.
  (a) The person  munt have moved  (or
moved his personal  property) as a result of
the receipt of  a written notice  to  vacate
which may have been given before or after
Initiation of negotiations for-acquisition of
the property as prescribed by regulations Is-
sued by the head of the Federal agency (When
negotiations are Initiated prior to Issuance
of a written notice,  all persons contacted by
the negotiating  agency should be  advised
that the benefits of the Act are available only
when the person moves subsequent to receipt
of a written notice.): or
  (b) The subject real property must In  fact
have  been acquired, and the person must
have moved as a result of Its acquisition  (ex-
cept in those Instances covered by sections
J17 and 218):
  (3) Certain of  the  benefits  provided by
Title II of the Aot are available as follows:
  (a) Whenever the acquisition of, or notice
to move from, real property used for a busi-
ness or farm operation cause* any person to
move from other  real  property used for his
dwelling or to  move his personal property
from  such other real  property, such  person
may receive the benefits provided by sections
909 (a) and (b)  and 206. and
  (b) If the head of  the displacing  agency
determines that any person occupying prop-
erty Immediately  adjacent to the  real prop-
erty acquired Is caused substantial economic
Injury  because  of the acquisition, he  may
offer such person relocation advisory services
under section 208 (c);
  (4) For  real  property  acquisitions  under
Federal law, contracts or options to purchase
real property shall not Incorporate provisions
for making payments for relocation costs and
rotated Items in Title II of the Act (Apprais-
ers shall not give  consideration to or Include
in their real property appraisals any allow-
ances for th< tonefits provided by Title II. In
the event  of condemnation  with  a declara-
tion of taking,  the  estimated  compensation
shall be determined  solely oo the basis of the
appraised value of the real property with no
consideration  being given to or reference con-
tained  therein to the  payments to be made
under Title II of  the Act.);
   (5) Agency regulations shall provide  that
 applications for benefits under the Aot are to
be made within 18 months from the date on
which the displaced person move* from the
real property acquired or to b* acquired; or
the date on  which  the displacing  agency
makes final payment of all costs of that real
property, whichever Is the later date  (The
head  of an agency  may extend this period
upon a proper showing of good cause.); and
  (8) The provisions of the Act apply to the
acquisition  of all real property for, and the
relocation of all persons displaced by. Federal
programs and projects  and  programs  and
projects undertaken by State agencies which
receive Federal financial assistance for all or
part of the cost. It Is immaterial whether the
real property  Is acquired  by  a Federal or
State agency or whether Federal funds con-
tribute to the cost of the real property.
  1.3   Agencies' reputation* and  procedures.
Departments and agencies with programs that
will result  In  the acquisition of  real prop-
erty,  the displacement of persons, or  both,
are urged to promptly revise or amend  their
regulations  and  procedures consistent  with
these Guidelines. A copy of the revised regu-
lations and a copy of each agency'e proced-
ures pertaining to Title II and in of  the Act
shall  b* furnished  to the  once  of  Federal
Management Policy, General Services Admin-
istration, when  they are  Issued. Copies of
subsequent revisions to each  agency's  regu-
lations and procedures shall also  be  fur-
nished.
   14  Review of activities for  compliance
with  Titles  II and III. The head of each Fed-
eral agency shall provide for periodic review
of all Federal  and federally assisted programs
to ensure compliance with the provisions of
Title* n and m of the Aot.
   1.5  Public information. The head  of each
Federal agency shall make available to the
public   full  information  concerning  the
agency's  relocation  programs. He shall en-
sure  that persons to be displaced are  fully
Informed at  the earliest  possible time, of
such matters as available relocation  pay-
ment*  and assistance; the  specific  plans
and  procedures  for assuring that  suitable
replacement  housing will  be available  for
homeowners and tenants In advance of dis-
placement;  the eligibility requirements and
procedures  for obtaining such payment* and
assistance;  and the right of  administrative
review by the head of the agency concerned.
as provided by chapter 13.
   1.8  Belooorton  Asiittanoe  Implementa-
tion  Committee (RAIC)—a.  Background.
 (1)  To promote the  uniform and  effective
administration of relocation  assistance and
real property acquisition programs, the Act
authorizes  and directs the heads of  Federal
agencies to consult together on  the estab-
lishment of regulations and  procedures for
the administration  of  such  programs.
   (3) To achieve  the uniformity required
by the Act, the  President,  by memorandum
of  January 4. 1971. directed  the Office of
Management  and Budget to form a  Reloca-
tion  Assistance  Advisory  Committee.  The
Relocation  Assistance Advisory Committee
was composed of representative* of the ma-
jor Federal agencies responsible  for  the ad-
ministration   of  programs  Involving the
displacement of  Individuals, businesses, and
farms.
   (3)  Following its initial  establishment
within the Oflce of Management and  Budget,
the name of  the Relocation Assistance Ad-
visory  Committee  was changed to  Reloca-
tion  Assistance Implementation  Committee.
The  Committee  nnme change more appro-
priately reflects its role.
   (4)  Pursuant to  Executive  Order  11717
and  the President's statement of Septem-
ber 6, 1973, the functions and chairmanship
of the  Relocation  Assistance Implementa-
tion  Committee were transferred from the
Office of Management and Budget to the
General Services Administration.
  b. Membership and function*, (l) BAIO
serves as the official forum at the  national
level where duly appointed  representatives
of several major Federal departments con-
sult together  on  the  Government's  real
property  acquisition  and  relocation pro-
grams.  Represented on  RAIC are  the De-
partments of  Agriculture: Defense; Health,
Education, and Welfare;  Housing and Urban
Development;  Interior; Justice; Transporta-
tion; and the General Services Adnujrlstra-
tlon. The United State* Postal Service also
participate* in  activities of  the RAIC. The
Administrator  of General  Services  is  the
Chairman of  the RAIC  and he mar invite
other  Federal  agencies  to  participate  M
appropriate.
   (3) RAIC Is responsible for promoting the
underlying purposes of the Aot and for en-
suring  national uniformity,  to the extent
practicable, among Federal  agencies  with
respect to real property acquisition and  re-
location assistance programs. These guide-
lines were prepared by RAIC and reflect the
collective experience of the member agencies.
   (3) In carrying out Its responsibilities RA-
IC makes recommendations to the General
Services Administration  regarding:
   (a) Revisions Federal agencies should make
in  their regulations  and procedure* to en-
sure national uniformity;
   (b) Revision* to be made to the guidelines
to  assure compliance with  the intent  and
spirit of the Act; and
   (c) Need for new legislation.
   1.7 Liaison  official for agencies  not rep-
resented on the  Committee, Bach  agency
that Is responsible for the acquisition of real
property or displacement of peteona, busi-
nesses, or tana  operations, and Is not repre-
sented on the Committee t all designate an
individual to serve a* liaison to coordinate
the- agency's  relocation activities  with  the
General Services Administration. The name
of  the  designs* shall be  submitted to  the
Administrator of General Services  within 30
workdays from receipt of this part.
   1.8  Federal Regional  Council (FRC) Vni-
form Relocation Assistance and /teal Property
Acquisition Coordination—a. formation and
organiaation.  (1) The chairmen of the Fed-
eral Regional Council* have  been  requested
to  ask council  member*  to designate  a*
agency representative who will be responsible
for coordination of the agency's activities in
the region  for the implementation of  the
Uniform  Relocation  Assistance and  Real
Property  Acquisition Policies Act of  1970.
Agencies such as OSA and others having re-
location assistance and  real property acqui-
sition programs, but who are not represented
on the Federal  Regional Councils,  should be
asked to provide designees also.
   (3)  The  specific organization,  structure,
and procedures governing regional  coordina-
ting mechanisms (e.g.,  task force) shall be
determined by  each  PRO  but shall be con-
sistent with normal FRO guidelines on super-
vision of Interagency coordinating commit-
tees as promulgated by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget. Each FRO should, however,
designate a lead staff member to ensure con-
tinuity and  a  focal  point for coordination
with agencies In the field and in Washington
DO. Copies of periodic  reports to the FRO
chairman Should also be forwarded to  the-
chairman of the RAIC  Working Group, Of-
fice of  Federal Management Policy, Gen-
eral Services Administration, in Washington,
DC, for Information.
   b.  Objectives and responsibilities. The
prime objective of the FRO will be to pro-
vide an umbrella for regional coordination of
relocation assistance and real property acqui-
sition programs among oonoerntid Federal and
                                 FEMXAL  REOISTtt, VOL 99, NO, 204—MONDAY, OCTOIER 21,  1974
-------
37370
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
federally assisted sgvncies. The FRO should
undertake such program* a* necessary to In-
cur* continuing coordination and mforma-
tkm  sharing  among  the  various Federal.
Btate, and  looal agencies concerned with ns-
looatton assistance and should:
  (1) Assure  effective  coordination among
Federal agendas In  implementing real  pro-
perty acquisition  and relocation assistance
policies and program* within the region to a
consistent and uniform bads.
  (3) Assure effective coordination between
Federal agencies and State and local Govern-
ment official*  concerned with relocation as-
sistance and real  property acquisition.
  (3) Provide appropriate  training/orienta-
tion programs for Federal,  State, and  local
officials responsible for relocation  assistance
and real property acquisition as needed.
  (4) Resolve In the field to the extent feasl-
Me and practical,  conflict* and Inconsisten-
cies identified In the implementation of the
guideline*  and related relocation  assistance
and real prupeUj acquisition policies. Those
oepl»g writ. A  housekeeping
 unit mutt Include a kitchen with fully usable
and COM running water la both fee bath-
room and the kitchen; an adequate and «an»
wiring system tor lighting  and other elec-
trical services;  and heating a*  lequteed by
•lunatic conditions and local codes.
  <3) Mos*oMsfeeepm(r unit. A nonhouse-
keeptng unit Is one which meet* local code
standards  for boarding bouses, hotel*, or
other congregate living. If local code* do not
Include requirements relating to space and
sanitary fadlKtes. standards will be subject
to the approval  of the head of the Federal
agency.
  (3)  Occ«ps*oy  standards.   Occupancy
standards  for  replacement housing  shall
comply with Federal agency approved occu-
pancy  requirements or  shall comply with
local code*.
  <4) Absence or tnmdequacy of local stand-
ard*. In thoas Instance* In which there I* no
local housing code, a local bousing code doc*
not  contain certain minimum standard*, or
the standards are Inadequate, the head of the
Federal agency may establish the standard*.
  3.3  Homing provUet  at a  latt retort.
'When  it 1* determined that adequate re-
placement  bousing 1* not available and can-
not  otherwise be  made available, the bead
of the Federal agency may take action or ap-
prove action by  a State  agency to develop
replacement housing. Federal agencies taking
or  approving  such action  for  replacement
boosing wttl be guided by  the  criteria and
procedure* tented by the Secretary of Hous-
ing  and Orban Development (34 CFR—Part
48, Subpart A) In accordance with the pro-
vision concerning section 308(a) of the Act
In the President's memorandum of January 4,
1971. A State agency taking such action shan
comply wrth the requirements and proce-
dure* of the Federal  agency which provide*
the  Federal financial assistant*.
  2.3  Loan* for plmmnhtg  and prsMwitaory
expenses. Federal agencies will be guided by
the criteria and  procedure* developed by the
Secretary of Housing and  Urban  Develop-
ment (34  CFR—Part 43. Subpart B)  when
providing  loans  to eligible borrower* for
planning and other preliminary  expenses au-
thorized under section 316. A State agency
providing suoh loans shall comply with the
requirements and procedures of the Federal
agency which provides the Federal financial
aaststance in accordance with the President's
memorandum of January 4. 1971.
  CHAPTBK *. MOVWO AHB  KD.MXD BXFKK8SS

  3.1  EHpfblHty.  a.  Any  displaced person
 (Including  one who conducts a business or
farm operation)  is eligible to receive a pay-
ment  for  moving expenses. A  person who
lives on hia business or farm property may
be eligible for both  moving and related ex-
pense* a* a dwelling occupant In addition to
being eligible for payment* with respect to
displacement  from  a  business  or   farm
operation.
   b. Any person  who moves from real  prop-
erty or moves his personal property from real
property, a* a result of the acquisition of such
real property in whole or part, or a* a  result
of  a written notice of Uic acquiring agency
to'vacate real property, or solely for the pur-
poees of section 302 (a) and (b) as a  remit
of  thj acquisition of. or a written  notice at
 the acquiring agency to vacate, other real
property on which such  person conduct* a
farm or business, l* ellglblle to receive a pay-
ment for moving expenses.
   8.3  Actual reasonable expense* in  mov-
 ing.—a.  Allowable  moving  expense*.  (1)
Transportation of Individual*, families, and
personal property from the acquired site to
the replacement site, not to exceed a dis-
 tance of SO mile*, except where the displacing
                                   boyottd

  (3) Packing, ssid tinpacklng.  sTsllin and
isnnrs/Ong of peraonal propei ty;
  (8) AOvsrUsmg for packing, costing, and
transportation  «a*n  the dlsplsving agency
aetermioe* that tt is •scessary;
  (4) Storage of pemonol property for a pe-
riod generally not to •MM* U nvtntha when
Ote displacing ssjMMy dwesnalBs* that storage
Is necessary  in oonoeetlon with istooatlon;
                                      (S) In
                                   damage of personal property while m gftnrmii
                                   or transit;
                                      (8) Removal.  retmtaHaUon.
                                   ment, including such modulation i
                                   necessary  by the  Federal agency  of.  and
                                   reconnectlon  of  utilities  for.  machinery.
                                   equipment, appliances, and other Mem*, not
                                   acquired  a* real properly. Prior to payment
                                   o( any expenses for removal and relnstallatton
                                   of such property, the  eSsptaned person shan
                                   be required to agree  in  witting  that the
                                   property i* personalty and that the itliiinssrtng
                                   agency Is released from any payment for the
                                   property;
                                      (7) Property lost, stolen, or damaged  (not
                                   caused  by  the  fault  or negligence of the
                                   displaced person, his  agent or employees),
                                   In the  prnntes of moving, where insurance
                                   to cover such toe* or dams*j* Is, not avellahte-,
                                   and
                                      (8) Other rnasnnsMs expenses determined
                                   to be allowable under regulation*  Issued by
                                   tbebeadotthewederalegmcy.
                                      b. btsUtsttoiia. (1) If the displaced person
                                   accomplishes the move himself, the amount
                                   of payment shall not exceed the estimated
                                   cost of moving oommerctany. unless the head
                                   of the responsible Federal agency determine*
                                   a greater amount is Justified.
                                      (3) If an item of personal property that is
                                   used m connection with any hurt ness or farm
                                   operation Is  not moved but  Is  sold  and
                                   promptly replaced with a comparable Item,
                                   reimbursement Shan not exceed the replace-
                                   ment cost minus the proceeds received from
                                   the sale, or the estimated cost of moving,
                                   whichever Is Mas.
                                      (3) If  personal property that Is used  In
                                   connection with any business or farm opera-
                                   tion  to be  moved Is of low value  and  high
                                   bulk, and the cost of moving would be dis-
                                   proportionate In relation to the value in the
                                   Judgment of the head of the Federal agency
                                   responsible for the program or project caus-
                                   ing the  displacement, the allowable reim-
                                   bursement for  the  -tup i" ' I of moving tn*>
                                   personal  property shall not exoeed the dif-
                                   ference tiutwsim the  amount which  weald
                                   have been received for such Item on liquida-
                                   tion and the eost of replacing the same with
                                   a comparable Item available on the market.
                                   This provision will be applicable in the eases
                                   of moving of  junk yards, stockpiled  sand.
                                   gravel, minerals, metals, and ^mii«i- items of
                                   personal property.
                                      (4) If th* oast of moving or relocating an
                                   outdoor advertising display or displays Is de-
                                   termined to be equal to or In excess  of the
                                   In-place  value of the display, consideration
                                   should be given to  acquiring the display  or
                                   displays a* a part of the real property, unless
                                   such an  acquisition Is prohibited by  State
                                   law.
                                      83  NonallovaoU  moving  expense*  and
                                    losses,  a. Additional  expense* Incurred be-
                                   cause of living in a new location:
                                      b. Cost of moving structures or other Im-
                                   provements In  which  the displaced person
                                   reserved ownership except as otherwise pro-
                                   vided by  law.
                                      c. Improvements to the replacement site,
                                   except when required by law;
                                      d.  Interest on loans to cover moving ex-
                                   penses;
                                 KOUAL REGISTER, VOL  39, NO.  204—MONDAY. OCTOBER 21,  1974
-------
                                                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                               37371
  «. Lou of good-win;
  f. Loss of profits;
  K I.OIIB of trained employee*;
  h. Personal Injury;
  i.  Cost  of  preparing the application  for
moving and related expenses:
  j.  Payment  of  search  cost ID connection
with  locating a replacement dwelling; and
  k. Such  other  Items as the head  of  the
Federal agency determines should be  ex-
cluded.
  3.4  Expenses in searching for replacement
hustnrs.i or farm—a. XUOwabte. (1)  Actual
travel rosts;
  (2) Extra costs for meals and lodging;
  (3) Time spent In searching at the rate of
the displaced person's salary or earnings,  but
not to exceed »10 per hour; and
  (4) lu  the  discretion  of  the displacing
agency, necessary broker, real estate or other
professional fees  to  locate  a replacement
business or farm  operation  under circum-
stances prcsoilned In Federal agency regula-
tions
  b. Limitation.  The  total amount  a dis-
placed person may  be paid for  searching ex-
penses may not eioeed 1000 unless the head
of  the  Federal agency  determine*  that  a
greater amount Is  justified because  of  the
circumstances Involved.
  3.5 Actual  direct lottes by  business or
farm  operation. If the displaced person does
not move personal  property, he shall be re-
quired Jo make a bona flde effort to sell It,
and shall be reimbursed  for the reasonable
costs  Incurred.
  a. When the business or farm operation
Is discontinued, the displaced person  Is  en-
titled  to  the  difference  between  the  fair
market value of  the  personal property for
continued  use at Its  location  prior  to  dis-
placement and the  sale proceeds, or the esti-
mated costs of moving 60 miles, whichever Is
less.
  b. When the personal  property  Is  aban-
doned, the displaced person Is entitled to pay-
ment for the fair market value of the prop-
erty for continued  use at Its location prior
to displacement or the estimated cost of mov-
ing 60 miles, whichever Is less*.
  c. The  cost  of  removal of  the personal
property shall not be considered as an offset-
ting charge against other payments to  the
displaced  person.

CHAPTER 4. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF MOTIWO  AMTD
             RELATED  EAPBLN8BS
  4.1  Dwellings—tdieanltn. a.  Subsection
203)  The taking  caused such  a substan-
 tial change in  the nature  of the existing
farm operation as to constitute a displace-
 ment.

If the use of the above criteria  obviously
 creates an Inequity In a given case, the head
of the Federal agency may approve the use of
other  criteria an determined  appropriate.
   4.4   Nonprofit organizations  If a  non-
 profit  organization  Is displaced,  no pay-
 ment  shall be made  under subsection 202
 (c)  until  after  the  head  of the Federal
 agency determines:
  a. That the nonprofit organization cannot
be relocated without a  substantial loss  of
its existing patronage (The  term "existing
patronage" as used In connection with non-
profit  organizations Includes  tbe  persons,
community, or clientele served or affected by
the activities of the nonprofit organization);
and
  b. That the nonprofit organization Is not
part of a commercial enterprise having  at
least one other establishment not being ac-
quired which Is engaged In the some or simi-
lar activity.
  4,5   Net earning*. The term "average an-
nual net eu'nlngB" as used In subsection 202
tc) moans one-half of any net earnings of
the business or farm operation before Fed-
eral, State,  and local Income  taxes, during
the two taxable  years  Immediately preced-
ing the taxable year in which such business
or farm operation moves from the real prop-
erty acquired for  such project, or during
such other period as the head of the displac-
ing agency determines to be more equitable
for establishing such earnings, and Includes
any  compensation paid by the business or
farm operation to the  owner,  hln spouse or
his dependents during such period If a busi-
ness or farm operation has no net earnings, or
has Huffered losses during the period used to
compute  "average annual net earnings"  It
may nevertheless receive the •2,600 minimum
payment authorized by this subsection.
  4.6  Amount of business  fixed  payment.
The fixed payment to a person displaced from
a farm operation or from his place of bunt-
ness, including nonprofit organizations, ahull
be in an amount equal to the average annual
net earnings of the business or farm oper-
ation,  except that such a payment shall not
be less than (2,600 nor more than (10.000.

cHArra s. •xruuanum BOTTBXNO PAYMCMT
             ro* KOMXOWMCRS

  5.1   Eligibility,  a.  A displaced  owner-oc-
cupant is eligible  for a replacement housing
payment  authorized  by section 203(a)  not
to exceed »IE.000 if  he meets both of the
following requirements:
  (1)  Actually owned and occupied the ac-
quired dwelling  from  which  displaced  for
not less than 180 days prior to the Initiation
of negotiations  for the property, or owned
and occupied the  properly covered or quail-
fled under section 217 for not less than 180
days prior to displacement (The term "Initia-
tion of negotiations" means the day on which
the acquiring agency makes the first per-
sonal  contact with  the  property owner or
hln representative and furnishes htm with a
written offer to purchase the real property.);
and
   (2)  Purchases and  occupies a replacement
dwelling, which Is decent, safe, and sanitary,
not later than the end of the one-year pe-
riod beginning on the date on which he  re-
ceives  from the displacing agency the final
payment of all costs of the acquired dwelling,
or on  the date on which be moves from the
acquired  dwelling, whichever Is the  later
date.
  b  If a displaced  owner-oocupant of  a
dwelling Is determined to be ineligible under
this chapter, he may b* eligible for a re-
placement housing payment under chapter
6,
  6.2  Comparable replacement duelling. Far
the  purposes of  rendering relocation  as-
sistance by  making referrals  for replace-
ment  housing  and  for computing the re-
placement housing payment,  a comparable
replacement dwelling Is one which Is decent.
safe, and sanitary, and:
  a.  Functionally  equivalent  and  substan-
tially the same as the acquired dwelling, but
not excluding newly constructed housing;
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL.  39,  NO. 204—MONDAY, OCTOBER 21,  1974
-------
37372
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  b. Adequate In size to meet the need* of
the  displaced family or Individual. (How-
ever, at the option of the displaced  person,
a replacement dwelling may exceed his needs
when the replacement dwelling has the same
number of rooms  or the equivalent square
r»otage as  the dwelling from which  he  was
displaced.);
  c. Open to all persons regardless of race,
color, religion, or national origin, consistent
with  the  requirement of the Civil  Rights
Act, of 19C4 and Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Ac;t (jf 1908;
  (1. Located In an nrea nut generally less de-
Blrahle than  the one In which the acquired
dwelling is located with respect to:
  ; 1) Neighborhood conditions,  Including
but  not limited to municipal services  and
other environmental factors;
  (2) Public utilities; and
  (3) Public and commercial facilities;
  e.  Reasonably accessible  to the displaced
person's place of  employment or potential
place of employment;
  f.  Within the financial means of the  dis-
placed family or Individual; and
  K. Available on the market to the displaced
person.

If  housing  meeting the   requirement of
this  paragraph Is  not available   on  the
market, the head of a displacing agency may,
upon a proper finding of the need therefor,
consider available housing  exceeding these
basic criteria.
  6.3  Computation of replacement  housing
payment. The replacement  housing payment
of  not more than $15,000 comprises  the
following:
  a. Differential  payment  for  replacement
housing. The head of the Federal agency  may
determine  the amount  which. If any, when
added to the acquisition cost of the dwelling
acquired by the displacing agency, Is neces-
sary to purchase a comparable replacement
dwelling by  either establishing  a schedule
or by using a comparative  method.  The re-
locate* Is bound to the method selected for
use by the displacing agency.
  (1)  Schedule method. The agency  may es-
tablish a schedule of reasonable  acquisition
coats for comparable replacement dwellings
of  the various typos of dwellings to be ac-
quired and available on the private  market.
The. schedule shall  be based on a  current
market analysis sufficient to support deter-
minations  of the amount  for each  type  of
dwelling to  be acquired. When  more  than
one Federal  agency la causing displacement
In a community or an area, the heads of the
arenclefi concerned »hall coordinate the es-
Uibllnhment of trie i-chcdule for  replacement
 hciuHlng payments.
   C2)  Cmnparatire method. The agency may
determine the prlre of a compnrable replace-
ment  dwelling  by selecting a  dwelling  or
 dwellings that are most reprenentatlve of the
dwelling unit acquired, are available to the
 displaced person,  and meet the definition of
 comparable replacement dwellings.  A single
dwelling shall be  used only when additional
comparable dwellings are not available.
   (3) Alternate  method. The  head of the
 displacing agency mnv develop  criteria for
 computing replacement housing payments
 wnun neither the schedule method nor the
 comparative method Is feasible. An alternate
 method proposed by a State agency thould be
 subject to prior concurrence of the appro-
 priate Federal agency.
  (4) Limitations. The amount established
as the differential payment for the replace-
ment bousing sets the upper limit of this
payment.
  (a) If the  displaced person voluntarily
purchases and occupies a 'decent,  safe, and
sanitary dwelling at a price less  than the
above, the  comparable replacement bousing
payment shall be reduced to  the amount
required to pay the  difference  between the
acquisition  price of  the acquired  dwelling
and the actual purchase price of the replace-
ment dwelling.
  (b) If the  displaced person voluntarily
purchases and occupies a decent,  safe, and
sanitary dwelling at a price less  than the
acquisition  price of  the acquired dwelling,
no differential payment shall be made.
  b. Interest payment. The head of the Fed-
eral  agency shall determine the amount,  if
any, necessary to compensate a displaced per-
son for  any Increased Interest costs, includ-
ing  points  paid by  the  purchaser. Such
amount shall  be paid  only If  the  acquired
dwelling was  encumbered by  a bona fide
mortgage. The following shall be considered:
  (1) The  payment  shall  be equal to the
excess In the  aggregate interest and other
debt service costs of the amount of the prin-
cipal of the mortgage on the replacement
dwelling which Is equal to the unpaid bal-
ance  of the bona fide mortgage on the ac-
quired dwelling, at the time of acquisition,
over the remaining term of the mortgage on
the acquired dwelling, reduced to discounted
present value.
  (2) The discount rate shall be the prevail-
ing Interest rate paid on savings deposits by
commercial banks In  the general area In
which the  replacement dwelling la located.
  (3) A "bona fide mortgage"  Is one which
was a valid lien on  the  acquired dwelling
for not less than 180 days prior to the Initia-
tion of negotiations.  All bona fide mortgages
on  the  dwelling acquired by the displacing
agency will  be used to compute the Increased
interest  cost  portion  of  the replacement
homing payment.
  (4) The  computation of the payment  for
Increased interest costs will be based  on the
actual term of the new mortgage or the re-
maining term of the  old mortgage, which-
ever Is  the  lesser, and the computation will
be  based on the actual amount of the new
mortgage or the amount or the old mortgage,
whichever Is the lesser.
  (a) Seller's points are not to be Included
In the Interest computation.
  (b)  The  actual Interest rate of the now
mortgage will be used  In the computation.
  (c)  Purchaser's points  and/or loan origi-
nation  fees will be added to the computed
interest payment.
   (6) However, the Interest payment shall be
based on the present value of the reasonable
cost  of  the Interest  differential. Including
points paid by the purchaser, on the amount
of the unpaid debt on the acquired dwell tag
for Its remaining term.
   (fl) See Figure 6.3.1, Format  for Computa-
tion of Interest Payment.
  c. Incidental expenses, (l) The head ot the
Federal  agency shall determine the amount,
 If  any,  necessary to reimburse a  displaced
pernon for reasonable  costs Incurred by him
Incident to the purchase of the replacement
 dwelling (but  .not  Including prepaid  ex-
penses)  such as:
   (a) Legal,  closing,  and related  cost*  in-
cluding title  search,  preparing  conveyance
Instruments, notary fees, surveys, preparing
plats, and charges Incident to recordatlon;
  (b) Lenders', FBA,  or VA, appraisal fees.
  (c) FHA application fee;
  (d) Certification  of structural soundness
when required by lender, FHA,  or VA,
  (e) Credit report;
  (f) Title  poll&les or  abstracts of title:
  (g) Escrow agent's fee; and
  (h) State revenue stamps or sale or trans-
fer  taxes.
  (2) No fee, cost, charge, or expense is re-
imbursable  as an Incidental expense which
Is determined to be  a part of the finance
charge under the Truth In Lending Act, Title
I, Public Law  90-321,  and Regulation "Z"
(12  CFR  Part 226) Issued pursuant thereto
by  the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System.
  d. Case going through,  condemnation. No
property  owner should be deprived  of the
earliest possible payment of the replacement
housing amounts to  which he la rightfully
due. The following procedure  shall be  used
on cases involving condemnation:
  (1) An advance replacement housing pay-
ment can be computed and paid to a prop-
erty owner If the determination of the acqui-
sition price will be delayed pending the out,-
come  of  condemnation   proceedings.  Tin-
agency may make a provisional replacement
housing  payment to  the  displaced home-
owner based on the agency's maximum offer
for  the property, providing the homeowner
enters Into an  agreement  with the Igency
that:
   (a)  Upon final determination of the con-
demnation  proceedings,   the   replacement
housing payment will  be  recomputed u»tn«
the acquisition  price determined by the
court as  compared to the actual price paid
or  the amount  determined necessary to ac-
quire  a  comparable, decent, safe, and  sani-
tary dwelling; and
   (b) If the amount awarded In the condem-
nation proceedings as the fair market  value
of the property acquired plus the amount or
the recomputed replacement  housing pay-
ment exceeds the price paid for, or the ac-
quiring   agency'*  determined cost  of  a
comparable dwelling,  he  will refund to the
acquiring agency, an amount  equal to the
amount of the excess. However, In no event
shall he be required to refund more than the
 amount of the replacement bousing payment
advanced.
   (2)  If  the property owner does  not  nuree
to  such adjustment, the  replacement hous-
 ing payment shall be deferred  until the cana-
 ls finally adjudicated and  computed on the
 baels of 'the final determination,  using the
 award as the acquisition price
   8.4  Mortgage insurance. The head of imv
Federal  agency administering  Federal mort -
 gage Insurance programs  may, upon  appli-
 cation by a mortgagee, Insure  any mortgage
 (Including advances during construction) on
 a comparable replacement dwelling executed
 by  a displaced  person assisted under thih
 section, if the mortgage la eligible  for lnmir
 ance under any Federal law administered by
 the  agency notwithstanding  any require-
 ments under  the law relating  to age, physi-
 cal condition, or other personal character-
 istics of  eligible mortgagors and may  make
 commitments for the insurance of  the mort-
 gage prior to the date of execution of the
 mortgage.
                                  FEDERAL UCISTER,  VOL  39,  NO. 204—MONDAY. OCTOBER 21,  1974
-------
                                                 RUtES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                                         373*73
                               BBBJVBCD INFCMIMATIOH

 1. Outstanding balance of mortgage on acquired dwelling	   8
 3. Outstanding balance of mortgage on  replacement dwelling	   $
 3. Leaser o* Un» 1 or Line 9	-	-	-   *-
 4. Number of month* remaining until last payment 1* due lor mort-
      gage on aaqulftd dwelling	
 5. Number of months remaining until last  payment  Is due for
      mortgage on replacement dwelling	.
 6. Lesser of Line 4 or Line 6	
 7. Annual Interest rate of mortgage on acquired dwelling (percent).
 8. Annual Interest rate of mortgage on replacement dwelling (or,  If
      It IB lower, the prevailing annual Interest rate currently charged
      by mortgage lending Institutions In the general area  In which
      the replacement dwelling Is located)  (percent)	
 9. Prevailing annual  interest rate paid on standard passbook savings
      accounts by commercial banks (percent)		
10. If applicable, any  debt service costs  on the loan on the replace-
      ment dwelling, such as points paid  by the purchaser which are
      not reimbursable as an Incidental expense		-.   »-
                     DCVKLOPIUMT Or MONTHLY. PAYMENT FlGUBIS

A. Monthly payment required to amontce a loejn at 8-~		in
                                                    (Lines)
     	months at an annual Interest rate of	percent-   $-_
     (Line 6)                                    (Line 7)
B. Monthly payment required to amortize a loan of 8	--- In
                                                    (Line 3)
     	months at an v"i«i Interest rate of	percent.   8--
     (Line 6)                                    (Line 8)
nry.
economic rent shall be used  In dotcnulniiiK
the  amount of  the payment to whlcb the
displaced tenant Is entitled.
  (4) Alternate  to (J)  and  (2). aboro. When
neither method  Is feasible, the head of the
Federal agency shall develop criteria for com-
puting the payment.
  (5) Limitation The  amount of the rental
replacement nounlng payment shnll be oom-
puted  by subtracting  the economic  rent of
the acquired dwelling from the lesser of:
  (a) The amount of rent  actually paid  for
the replacement  dwelling; or
  (b) The  amount determined by the dis-
placing agency as  necessary to rent  n  com-
parable replacement dwelling.
  (6) Disbursement  of rental  rrplaorrn«nt
hoiatny payment.  The head  of the Federal
agency shall develop procedures to Implement
section 204 to provide,  within the 84,000 and
four-year limitations at that stntlon. a rental
replacement hmiattag payment ttoat will ea-
able the dlsplaoee to rent comparable, deoent.
sate, and sanitary tanning. The amount of
                                FEDERAL RfOISTH, VtH  39, NO.  204—MONDAY,  OCTOBE*  21,  7974
-------
.'{7.-J74
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS
ihe  rental  payment under  section  304(1)
shall be determined and paid In a lump sum.
except It ahall be paid in  installments U the
displaced person so requests.
  b. Purchase*—replacement  housing  pay-
ment. It the tenant elects to purchase Instead
99 Asylum Avenue
Tel. (203) 244-3638
Area Director—Lawrence L. Thompson
Massachusetts, Boston 02114
Bulflnch Building
16 New Chardon Street
Tel. (617) 223-4111
Area Director—M. Daniel Richardson, Jr.
New Hampshire, Manchester 03101
Davlson Building
1230 Elm Street
Tel. (603) 669-7881
Area Director—Creeley 8. Buchanan

             INSURING OFFICES

Maine, Bangor 04401
Federal Building and Post Office
202 Hurlow Street
Post Office Box 13S7
FTSTel. (207) 942-8271
Commercial Number: 942-8271
Director—Wayne M. Johnson
Rhode Island, Providence 02003
330 Post Office Anne*
Tel. (401) 528-4351
Director—Charles  J McCabe
Vermont. Burlington 054O1
Federal Building
Elmwood Avenue
Post Office Box f>89
FTSTol (802) 862-9274
Commercial Number- 862-6501
Director—Leslie E  Snow

                REGION n

Retflonal Administrator 8. William Qretn
26 Federal Plaza. Room 3841
New York, New York 10007
Tei. (212) 264-8068

                AREA OFFICES

Now Jersey, Car«den 08103
The Parkacle Building
510 Federal Street
FTSTel (6001 963 2301
Commercial Number: 963 2541
Area Director—Philip O. Sadler
New Jersey. Newark 07102
Gateway 1 Building
Raymond Plaza
Tel. (201)  645-3010
Area Director—James P. Sweeney
New York, Buffalo 14202
Grant Building
560 Main Strert
Tel. (716)  842-3610
Area Director—Frank D. Corabone
New York. New York 10007
120 Church Street
Tel. (212)  264-2870
Area Director—Joseph D. Montlcclolo
   (Acting)
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 3V, NO. 204—MONDAY,  OCTOBER  21,  1974
-------
        COMMONWEALTH ABBA OFFICB

Puerto Rico. San Juan 00039
266 Ponce de Leo» Avenue
Hato Rey. Puerto Rico
Mailing Address:  O  Pos*  Office Box  386B,
  Ban Juan, Puerto Wee
FTS Tel.  (Dial  aoa-087  1221—ask  operator
  for 6220201; from Washington. D.C.—dial
  Code 100—ask operator for 622-0201)
Commercial Number: 800-766-0404
Area Administrator—Jo»e  K.  Febr*»  Sllva
  (Acting)
             INSURING OFFIC**

New York. Albany 1290*
Westgate North
30 Russell Road
Tel. (618)  472-360T
Director—Robert J. Wolf  (Acting,
New York. HempsUad 11660
176 Fulton Avenue
Tel. (616) 486-6000
Director—Michael Lean (Acting)
                REGION HZ

Regional Administrator
  Theodore R. Robb
Curtis Building
9th and Walnut Street*
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania  10100
Tel. (216)  507-2560

               AREA OFFICE*
District of Columbia. Washington 30009
Universal  North Building
1876 Connecticut Are. N.W.
Tel. (202)  382-4856
Area  Director—Harry W.  Stellar  (Acting)
•farrUad. Baltimore 21901
Two Hopkins Plaza
Mercantile Bank and Trust Bunding
T?l  (301)  062-2121
Area Director—Allen T. Clapp
Pennsylvania. Philadelphia  10106
Curtis Building
025 Walnut Street
Tel. (316)  607-2666
Area Director—Joseph A. LaBala (Acting)
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh 16212
Two Allegheny Center
Tel. (412)  044-2802
Area Director—Charles J. Lleberth
Virginia. Richmond 23210
701 East Franklin Street
Tel. (804)  782-2721
Are* Director—Carroll A. Mason
             INSURING OFFICES
Delaware.  Wilmington 10801
Farmers Bank Building, 14th Floor
019 Market Street
FTS Tel. (302) 571-0330
Director—Henry McC. Winchester. Jr.
West Virginia. Charleston 26330
K*w Federal Building
500 Quarrler Street
Poet Office Box 2948
FTBTel. (304) 343-1321
Commercial Number: 343-0181
Director—H. William Rogers
          SPECIAL RECOVERY OFfTOB
Bcranton, Pennsylvania 18603
Lackawanna County Building
Spruce and Adams Avenue
Tel. 717-344-7303
Director—James D. Corbln

                REGION IV

Regional Administrator, E. Lunar Bculi
Peachtree-Seveuth Building
60 Seventh Street. N.E.
Atlanta. Georgia 30323
Tel. (404)  626-6686
                                                 RULES  AND REGULATIONS
               AREA omen
Alabama, Birmingham 30988
Daniel Building
15 South 20th Street
Tel. (205)  326-4264
Area Director—Jon Will Pitt*
Florida. Jacksonville 32304
Peninsular Plaza
661 Riverside Avenue
Tel. (004)  791-2626
Area Director—Forrest  W. HoweU

Georgia, Atlanta 30303
Peachtree Center Building
230 Peachtree Street. N.W.
Tel. (404)  626-4576
Area  Director—William  A.  Hartman,  Jr.
   (Acting)
Kentucky. Louisville 40201
Children's Hospital Foundation Bldg.
601 South Floyd Street
Post Office Box 1044
Tel. (502)  582-5251
Area Director—Virgil O. Klnnalvd
Mississippi. Jackson 30213
101-C Third Floor Jackson Malt
300 Woodrow Wilson Avenue, W.
FTS Tel. (601) 048-2267
Commercial Number: 366-2634
Area Director—James S. Roland

North Carolina. Greensboro 27408
2300 West Cone Boulevard
Northwest Plaza
FTS Tel. (910) 276-9361
Commercial Number: 276-0111
Area Director—Richard B. Barn wen

South Carolina. Columbia 2920*
1801 Main Street
Jefferson Square
Tel. (803)  765-6591
Area Director—Clifton  O. Brown

Tennessee. Knoxvllle 37019
One Northshore Building
1111 Northshore Drive
FTS Tel. (616) 624-4661
Commercial Number: 584-8627
Are* Director—Carroll O. Oakes
             INSURING OFFICE*
Florida, Coral Gables 33134
3001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
FTS Tel. (306) 350-6221
Commercial Number- 446-2861
Director—Louis T. Balne (Acting)
Florida. Tampa 33609
4224- 28 Henderson Boulevard
Post Office Box 18166
Tel. (813)  228-2601
Director—K. Wayne Bwlger
Tennessee. Memphis 38103
28th Floor, 100 North Main Street
Tel. (001)  634-3141
Director—Olynn O. Raby, Jr. (Acting)
Tennessee. Nashville 37203
1717 West End Building
Tel. (616)  740-6621
Director—Ooorge N. Oragson
                REGION V
Regional Administrator Oeorje J. Vovoulla
300 South Wivcker Drive
Chicago. Illinois 60606
Tel. (312)  363-6680

               AREA omen
Illinois, Chicago 60602
17 North Dearborn Street
Tel. (312)  363-7660
Area Director—John L. Wane*
Indiana, Indianapolis 48200
WlUowbrook 5 Building
4720 1C Ings way Drive
Tei. (317)  633-7188
                                   37375

Area Director—Choice Edwards (Acting)
Michigan, Detroit 48228
5th Floor, First National Building
860 Woodward Avenue
Tel. (313) 226-7900
Area Director—John E. Kane (Acting)
Minnesota. Mlnneapolls-St. Paul
Orl^gs-Mldway Building
1821 University Avenue
8t. Paul, Minnesota 6S104
Tel. (612) 725-4701
Area Director—Thomas T. Peenejr
Ohio, Columbus 43216
BO Kiifl Mftln Street
Tel (814) 469-7345
Area Director—Elmer C. Blnford (Acting)
Wisconsin, Milwaukee 63203
V44 North 4th  Street
Tel. (414) 224-3223
Area Director—Richard A. KalMT (Acting)
              INSURING orncss
Illinois. Springfield 62704
Lincoln Tower Plaza
624 South Second Street, Room  600
Tel. (217)  625-4414
Director—Boyd O. Burton
Michigan, Grand Rapids 49608
Northbrook Building Number 11
2022 Fuller Avenue, N.B.
Tel. (616) 466-2225
Director—Alfred Raven
Ohio, Cincinnati 45202
Federal Office Building
660 Main Street, Room BOOB
Tel. (513) 684-2884
Director—Charles Collins n (Acting)

Ohio. Cleveland 44190
FrJeral Building
1240 East 9th Street
Tel. (216) 622-4066
Director—C-arles P. Lucas
                 REGION VI
Regional Administrator Richard L. Morgan
Room 14835, New Dallas Federal Building
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 76202
Tel. (214) 749-7401

               AftEA OFFICES
Arkansas. Little Rock 72201
Room 1490, Union National Plans,
Tel. (501) 378-6401
Area Director—Thomas E. Barber
Louisiana.  New Orleans 70113
Plaza Tower
1001 Howard Avenue
Tel. (604) 527-2063
Area Director—Thomas J. Armstrong
Oklahoma. Oklahoma City 73109
301 North Hudson Street
FTS Tel. (405) 231-4891
Commercial Number: 231-4181
Area Director—Robert H. Breedea
Texas, Dallas 75202
2001 Bryan Tower, 4th Floor
Tel. (214) 749-1601
Area Director—Mttuuol Sanchez OX
Texas. San Antonio 7828S
KnlllHon Building
410 South Main Avenue
Post Office Box 0108
FPSTel. (612J 226-4688
Commercial Number: 225-6611
Area Director—Plnnls E. Jolly
              INSURING OFFICE*
Louisiana, Shreveport 71101
614 Rlcou-Brewster Building
426 Mllam Street
FTS Tel. (318) 425-6601
Commercial Number: 426-1241
Director—Rudy L&ngford
                                KDEIAL  REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 204—MONDAY, OCTOBER 21,  1974
-------
37.176
                                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS
New Mexico, Albuquerque 87110
026 Truman Street, N.K.
Tel (606) 760 3261
Director—Luther a. Branhaa

Oklahoma, Tulna 74163
1708 UUca Square
Post Office Bos 4064
Tel (918) 681-7435
Director—Robert H. Gardner

Texas. Fort Worth  70103
a 19 Taylor Street
Room 13A01 Federal Building
Tel  (817) 334-3IM3
Director—Richard M HozelwOOd

Texas. Houston 77046
Two Oreenway Plan Bast. Suite 900
•lei  (713) 236-4336
Director—William A Painter

Texas, LubborX 7940B
Courthouse and Federal Office Building
1206 Texas Avenue
Post Office Box l'!47
FTS Tel. (806) 747-32C5
Commercial If umber: 747-3711
Director—Don D. Earuey

                REGION vn

UeKlonul  Administrator Klmer E. Smith
Federal Olllro Building, Room 800
1)11 Walnut Street
 Kansas City, Missouri 64100
Tel. (816) 374-2061

                A1U- A OFF LCU8

 Kansas, Kansas City 66101
 Two Gateway Center
4th and State Streets
 Tel. (816) 374-4366
 Area Director—William R. Sonthertend
 Missouri. St. Louis 03101
 210 North 12lh Street
 Tel (314) 022 4700
 Area Director—Elmo O. Turner
 Nebraska, Omaha 68106
 Unlvac Building
 7100 West Center Road
 Tel  (402)  221-!>')() 1
 Area Director—Guy J  Birch

              INSURING OFFICCS

 Iowa. Des Mi'lne'.  S0309
 210 Walnut Street
 Room 259 Federal Building
 Tel. (515) 28-I-4512
 Director—Nate Ruben
 Kansas. TopcKa G6U03
 700 Kansas Avenue
 Tel  19i:)| 234 B241
 Director—Jim Haff (Acting)

                RKUIOM VLU

 Regional  Administrator  Bobert O.
    helm
 Federal Building
  1001 Stout Street
 Denver, Colorado 80203
 Tel. (3011) 837 4881

              iNsomra

 Colorado, Denver 80303
 4l,h Floor. Title Building
 000—I7lh Slieet
 Tel   (303) B37 2441
 Director—Joseph a. W
  Montana. Helena ROCOl
 010 Helena Avenue
 Tel  (40«)  442 3J37
 Director—<>rv In B. PJare
  North Dakota. Fargo 68109
  Federal Building
  653 2d Avenue N.
  Post Office Box 2488
  Tel  (701) 237-6136
Director—Duane R. Llffrtg
South Dakota, Sioux Falta 67103
110 Federal Building VS. Courthouse
400 S. Phillips Avenue
FTS Tel  (605) 336-2223
Commercial Number: 336-3980
Director—Rodger L Rosenwald
Utah. Salt Lake City 84111
126 South State Street
Post Office Box 11009
Tel. (801) 534-6237
Director—L. C. Romney
Wyoming, Casper 82601
Federal Office Building
10O East  B Street
Post Office Box 680
FTS Tel. (307) 266-3252
Commercial Number: 306-666O
Director—Marshall F. Elliott (Acting)
FMC74-8
                RJKION EX
Regional Administrator Robert H. Balda
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Post Office Box 36003
San Francisco, California 04103
Tel. (416) 660-4752

               AKEA OFFICES
California, Los Angeles 90067
25O8 Wllshlre Boulevard
Tel. (213) 688-0073
Area Director—Roland E. Cornfield (Acting)
California. San Francisco 04111
 1 Embaroadero Center
Bulte 1600
Tel. (415) 666-3338
Area Director—James H. Price

                       Omen
 Ar)w>na, Phoenix 85002
 244 West Osbom Road
 Post Office Box 13468
 FTTJTel. (601) 261-4434
 Commercial Number: 301-4441
 Director -Merrltt R. Smith
 California, Sacramento 95809
 801 I Street
 Post Office Box 1978
 Tel  (916) 449-3471
 Director—Richard D. Chamberlain
 California. San Diego 92113
 113 West C Street
 Post Office Box 2648
 Tel. (714) 293-6310
 Director - Albert E. Johnson
 California. Santa Ana 92701
 1440 East First Street
 FTS Tel (213) 83(> 2451
 Commercial Number: (714) 830-3451
 Director—Robert L. Simpson
 HftWH.lt. Honolulu 96818
 10O Bishop Street. 10th Floor
 Post Office Box 3377
 FTS Tel. (Dial 416-666-0230 and ask operator
    for 646-2136)
 Commercial Number: 646-3130
 Director—Alvln K. H. Pang
 Nevada. Reno 80606
 1000 Bible Way
 Pont Office Box 4700
 Tel. (702) 784-5:150
 Director  MorleyW. Orlswold

                  RixiiON X

 Regional Administrator Oscar P. Psdereon
 Arcade Plaza Building
  1331 Second Avenue
 Seattle. Washington 00101
 Tel. (300)  443-6416
                                                                                        Oregon, Portland 07304
                                                                                        620 Southwest 6tn Avenue
                                                                                        Tel. (603) 221-2668
                                                                                        Ares. Director—Russell H. Dawaon
                                                                                        Washington, Seattle 08101
                                                                                        Arcade PUBS, Building
                                                                                        1331 Second Avenue
                                                                                        Tel. (300) 443-7450
                                                                                        Area Director—Marshall D. Majors
                                                                                        Alaska, Anchorage 99601
                                                                                        334 West 6th Avenue
                                                                                        FTS Tel. (Dial 206-443-0160 and ask operator
                                                                                           for 265-4790)
                                                                                        Commercial  Number:  (907)  373-6561  Bit.
                                                                                           791
                                                                                        Director—James Tvolt (Acting)
                                                                                        Idaho, Boise 83707
                                                                                        331 Idaho Street
                                                                                        Post Office Box 32
                                                                                        FTS Tel. (208) 343-3333
                                                                                        Commercial Number: 343-3711
                                                                                        Director—Charles L. Holler. Jr.
                                                                                        Washington, Spokane 90301
                                                                                        West 920 Riverside Avenue
                                                                                        Tel. (509) 456-4871
                                                                                        Director—E. Daryl Mabee

                                                                                           CHAPTER 8 rCDCRAIXY ASSISTED HtOOBAMB

                                                                                           8.1  Assurance*—a. information. The as-
                                                                                        surances  required of State agencies by sec-
                                                                                        tions 210 and 305 shall Include a  statement
                                                                                        that the  affected persons will be adequately
                                                                                        Informed of the benefits, policies, and pro-
                                                                                        cedures described In the assurances.
                                                                                           b.  Inability  to   provide assurances. The
                                                                                        head of a Federal  agency Bhall not approve
                                                                                        or authorize any action by  a State agency
                                                                                        which will result In the displacement of any
                                                                                        person or the acquisition or any real property
                                                                                         except In accordance with tb» following re-
                                                                                         quirements:
                                                                                           (l) A State agency has provided satisfac-
                                                                                         tory assurances as  required  by sections 310
                                                                                         and 306;  or
                                                                                           (2) A  State agency's assurances are ac-
                                                                                         companied by a statement In which It Identi-
                                                                                         fies any  of  the assurances required by sec-
                                                                                         tion 306 which It  us  unable to provide. In
                                                                                         whole  or In part, under Its laws.  The state-
                                                                                         ment should be supported by  an  opinion of
                                                                                         the chief legal officer of the  State agency or
                                                                                         other appropriate legal officer  Federal agen-
                                                                                         cies administering federally  assisted pro-
                                                                                         grams mfty adopt  procedures setting  forth
                                                                                         the conditions under which  projects will be
                                                                                         approved when State agencies cannot fully
                                                                                         comply with section 305. In all cases there
                                                                                         must be full compliance with all  assurances
                                                                                         required by section 210.
                                                                                           c  Compliance with, sections Ml  anil 302
                                                                                         A State  aRency. as part of  the  assurances
                                                                                         required  by  section  3O6.  shall  provide   a
                                                                                         statement  Indicating the extent to  which it
                                                                                         can comply  with  the provisions  ot flections
                                                                                         301  and 302. If the State agency indicates
                                                                                         that It l.s  unable  to comply fully with any
                                                                                         of thcHe policies. Its statement shall be sup-
                                                                                         ported by  an opinion of  the chlof  legal of-
                                                                                         ficer of the State agency or other appropriate
                                                                                         legal officer. State agencies  should comply
                                                                                         with sections  301  and 302  If, under Stiuo
                                                                                         law, compliance Is legally possible.
                                                                                           d. Monitoring (uniranceit. The heads  of
                                                                                         Federal agencies shall take continuing action
                                                                                         to Insure that State agencies are acting in
                                                                                         accordance with the  assurances  they have
                                                                                         provided.
                                                                                           8 2  Administration  of  relocation  assist-
                                                                                         ance programs— a.  Approval. A State agency
                                                                                         electing  to contract for services pursuant to
                                                                                         section 212 shall enter Into a written con-
                                                                                         tract consistent with the regulations of the
                                   IttEIAL IEOISTEK, VOL  39.  NO. 204—MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1974
-------
                                                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                               37377
Federal  agency administering the  project
or program causing the displacement. The
head of the Federal agency shall take affirm-
ative action to aMure that the contract is so
Administered at to provide uniform  and ef-
fective relocation  for all  displaced persona,
consistent with ttaMe guidelines.
  b. Contract tar tervlcei by State agenda.
Contract* shall Include, as a minimum, the
following provisions :
  (1) That payments and assistance shall be
provided In accordance with Federal agency
regulations implementing  these  guidelines;
  (2) Thnt  records  required  by  Federal
agency  regulation* shall  be retained  for a
period of at least 3 years and shall be  avail-
able for  Inspection by representatives of the
Federal agency Involved and the General Ac-
counting Office;
  (3)   Clauses  required  by Federal agency
regulations Implementing Title  VI of  the
ClVll  Bight* Act of  1964  (Public Law  88-
863); and
  (4) Any other provision approved by the
head of the Federal agency administering the
federally assisted program or project.
         CHAPm •. ANNUAL aBPOBT
  >» 1   General, a. Section 314 requires  the
head of each Federal agency with responsibil-
ities for Federal or federally assisted pro-
grams that come within  the purview of the
Act to prepare and submit an annual report
to the President on the activities of the re-
porting agency with respect to the programs
and policies established or authorized by the
Ac*. The President must  submit these re-
ports,  together with  his  comments or rec-
oummdatlon*,  to the Congress not  later
than JteWsur H.M **eh JMT. Midlng  Janu-
ary 15. 1978. The report  prescribed by this
chapter shall be submitted to the Adminis-
trator  of General  Services each year after
January 1075.
  b. The report required  by section 214 shall
be prepared on a  fiscal year bail* and sub-
mitted  to  the Administrator  of  General
Services. Bach report shall consist of narra-
tive comment* and  supporting  statistical
data.
  9.3   Submiition  to  General Service*  Ad-
ministration. The original and 4 copies of the
complete report shall be  submitted to the
Administrator of General Services, not later
than October 1 of ettch year.
  p.S  AtoraMu*  comment*. The narrative
comment portion of the  report shall iimiude
the following;
  a. XMiirnnr* nf required r*)>f"'*«m*nc >II>M«-
ing. (I) Agency*! comment* concerning th*
effectiveness of the provision* of the Act  re-
lating to  assurances of the  availability of
comparable,  decent,  safe, and  sanitary  re-
placement housing for displaced homeown-
ers and tenants;
  (3) A description of the action* taken by
the agency to assure compliance with the re-
quirements of section*  306(0) (3), 3M(b)
and 310(3) concerning such assurances; and
  (3) Information  on all  court decision* af-
fecting the agency that concern the adequacy
of replacement housing.
  b. Agency'» action* to achieve objective*
of the Act. (1) A description of the actions
taken  by the agency to achieve the objec-
tives of the policies of Congress, declared In
the Act to provide1 uniform and equal  treat-
ment,  to the greatest extent practicable,  for
all  persons  displaced  by or  having  real
property taken for Federal or federally as-
slated programs; and
  (3) The provisions adopted by the agency
for coordination with other Federal,  State,
and local  displacing agencies.
  c. Progress in achieving objective* of the
Act. Progress of the agency in the various
programs   conducted    or   administered,
Indicating;
  (1) Success In the coordination of agency
relocation  activities  with  other  Federal.
State, and local agencies;
  (3) Agency's experience with and the cost
of  utilizing  section  206(a)  -authority  to
provide replacement housing,  citing difficul-
ties. If any. In obtaining funds for this pur-
pose and  the Impact  on specific  projects;
  (3) Agency's experience with and cost of
Implementing section 318 concerning loans
for planning  and obtaining federally Insured
mortgage  financing for replacement housing;
  (4) For federally assisted  programs  under
each  agency's  jurisdiction,  enumerate  the
States.  If  any, not In compliance with  '.he
Act on the reporting date (If  compliance by
any State does not  extend  to  any  or  all
federally  assisted  programs  conducted  or
administered  by the  agency,  the programs
excepted  should  be Indicated, and an  ex-
planation should be furnished for the basis
of the States' Inability to comply. In all such
Instances,  Indicate the expected date  for
full compliance by the State.); and
  (5) Adverse effects of the Act. if  any, on
programs  conducted  by the  Agency.
  d. fffect of the Act on the public. Describe
any Indicated effects  of the relocation pro-
gram and policies on  the  public, reporting
conclusions obtained from  surveys,  special
studies, and other sources relating  to  the
effects of the Implementation of the Act on a
neighborhood or community.
  e. Recommendation*.  Agency recommen-
dations for  further  Improvement In relo-
cation assistance and land acquisitions pro-
grams, policies, and Implementing laws  and
regulations shall  Include any proposals for
amendments or revisions to:
  (1)   General   Service*  Administration
guidelines;
  (S) Federal legislation; or
  (S) State  legislation.
  f. Agency  reputation*. Report the date
regulations and significant  revisions thereto
were published In the  FIMBAL Rsnimm by
the agency and major organizational unit*
of  the agency.
  g.  Waiver  of  utterance  of replacement
homing. Describe any situation  or  circum-
stance* which required a waiver of assurance
of  replacement housing, pursuant  to sub-
section 906(o) (8). For any waivers reported,
submit the agency'* finding*  and the  deter-
mination  supporting  waiver of the require-
ments of the subsection.
   W.4   Statinttcal  data. Agencies  and  de-
|mrtmm\U oliall alno provide statliiUniU data
with tlin narrative n>poru Department* ahull
furnish daU  mtparatoly for  «nvh  Federal
program  and  enoh federally  assisted pro-
gram, together with a summary for th* whole
department.  The  data  shall be provided In
the  format  of  th*   following  attached
figures':

Figure  0.4.1  Payments  and Expenses  Under
               Title II—Part  I
Figure  9.4.3  Payments  and Expense*  Under
               Title  H—Part* II and Til
Figure 9.4.8  Uniform Real  Property Acqui-
               sition  Policy—Title  IH
     CIIAPTXn  10. UNIFORM EIAL PHOPERTT
             ACQUISITION POUCT

  10.1  Applicability. The provisions of Title
HI apply  to  the acquisition of real property
for Federal and federally assisted programs or
projects.
  10.3  Acquisition procedure*—a. Just com-
pensation. Section 301(3)  establishes  the
policy that before Initiation of negotiations
for the acquisition of real property the head
of the Federal agency concerned shall  estab-
lish an amount which he believes to be just
compensation therefor. In no event shall that
amount be less than the agency's approved

  1 Filed as  part  of original  document.
appraisal of  the fair  market value of  the
property.
  b. Initiation of negotiation*—(I)  State-
ment to be furnished to the owner. When
negotiations for the acquisition of real prop-
erty are Initiated, the owner shall  be pro-
vided with a written  statement concerning
the  proposed  acquisition.  This  statement
shall Include, as a minimum, the  following'
  (a) Identification of the real property and
the estate or Interest therein to be acquired.
Including the buildings, structures, and other
Improvements on the  laud  and the fixtures
considered to be a part of the real property;
and
  (b) The amount  of the estimated  just
compensation for the property to be acquired
an determined by the acquiring agency and
a statement of the basis therefor. In the case
of a partial  taking, damages. If any, to the
remaining  real  property shall be separately
stated.
  (2) Offer to purchase. The head of the Fed-
eral agency  shall make  a  prompt  pffer to
purchase  the property tor  the  amount In
the  statement.
  10.3  Appraisal standard*. For the purpose
of promoting uniformity under section 301
(3). the head of each Federal agency  shall
establish for all Federal or federally assisted
programs under his  jurisdiction standards
for appraisals used In such programs, criteria
for  determining the  qualifications  of ap-
praisers, and a system of  review by qualified
appraisers, consistent with  the  current Is-
sue  of the Uniform Appraisal Standard* for
Federal Land Acquisition published by the
Interagency Land Acquisition Conference.
  10.4  Notice to move.  Subsection 301(5)
provides that, to  the greatest extent prac-
ticable, no  person lawfully occupying  real
property shall be required  to move  from a
dwelling or  to  move  his business or  farm
operation without  at least 90 days written
notice from the head of the displacing agency
of th* date by which such move Is required.
This subsection applies  only In those In-
stances where actual displacement of  per-
son*, businesses, or farm operations occur*.
  10.5  Federally  tutitted   program*.   The
head of erfch Federal agency administering
Federal financially assisted  programs carried
out by State agencle* should require  that
State agencies reimburse owners for neces-
sary expense* as  specified  In sections 308
and 304. Th* bead  of each Federal agency
also should  require that all State agencies
comply with  the provisions of  section* 801
and 303 If compliance Is Legally possible uo-
der State law.

          OHAITBB 11. Dnmrmott*

  11.1  Applicability.  The regulations of all
Federal agencies should  conform with the
definition! contained  In  the Act and  titan*
guidelines. These  definitions *r«  lltnluid to
the Implementation of th* Act. '/tin Imitrl of *
Federal agency may expand thus*  (InniiiUunii
to ensure greater clarity  and the Niiocpmhil
Implementation of  his programs; however,
such modifications shall not result In a de-
viation In concept from these definition)).
  11.3  General  The following  definitions
are In other chapters of  the guidelines and
shall be applied as indicated In 11.1 above:
  a. Comparable replacement housing, para-
graph  6.2;
  b  Decent,  nafe, and sanitary housing, sub-
paragraph  2.Id;
  c. Economic rent,  subparagraph  6.2a(l);
  d. Incidental  expenses,  subparagraph 6.3o;
  e. Initiation  of  negotiations,  nubpnru-
graphs 5.1a(l) and 6 la;
  f. Interest  payment, subparagraph  6.8b;
and
  g. Net earning*, paragraph 4.0
  11.8  Definition*—a.  The  Act.  "The  Act-
means the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
                                 FEDERAL MOISTER,  VOL.  39,  NO. 204—MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1974
-------
37378
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS
a*al Prupei ty Aoqulattlan Policies Act of 1070
(Public Law 01-046), approved  January 2.
1071.
  b. DUfUctng o0«ftey. "Displacing  agency"
means a Federal agency In the caae  of a di-
rect Federal  project, or a Utate agency, as
denned In the Act. In thr caso of a project
receiving  Federal financial cjtstoUuce whose
project le causing the dlepiaoement of a per-
son, business or a farm  operation.
  c. Dwelling "Dwelling" means the place of
permanent or customary and usual atrde of
a person It Includes «, single family building;
b one-family unit In a multi-family bustling;
a  unit of a condominium <>/  cooperative
housing project,  any other ,-esldentlnl unit,
Including  a  mobile home  which IB ilther
considered to be real  property under 8tet«
law, or cannot be muved wltt>out «uht.iantiol
damage or unreasonable tjont or Is net a de-
cent, nafe. and tanltary  dwelling.
  d. Family.  A "family" mean* two  or more
Individuals who are related oy blood, .*do;>-
tlon, marriage or legal gusTdJanship wbo live
together as a family unit Hovever. upon ap-
propriate  determination b; the bead of the
Federal agency, others  who live  together as
a family unit may be treateu as If they were
a family for the purpose of determining bene-
fits -under Title II of the Act.
  e  financial mea»is For the purpose of Ue-
t»rniii'lnn  financial  meant of  families  and
Individuals In accordance with  wet,en  206
(c) (3), a financial uioans tesi (ability to pay)
must be made to satisfy the requirements *et
forth In paragraph  6.1 f. cf the g ildPHrna. In
order to meet a «™«""»«o muoiu tost, s detor-
mJnation  should tut nude a* to the dli*pl*oed
person's ability to  afford the raplaoMxttat
dwelling  In  mitfcing thin drtermlniU'on, the
average monthly rental or housing cc.,r  (e.g.,
monthly mortgage  payments. !n»urr.uoe 'or
the  dwelling unit, property to.*.** an" other
reasonable recurring related *xpr.nse&) which
the  displaced  pernon will be  required to
pay, in general, should not exceed i6  pei-
cont of the monthly ^ross Income or the pres-
ent ratio  of housing payments to the Income
of  the displaced family or Individ' c.'. In-
cluding supplemental   payments made  by
public agencies. The regulation of each Fed-
eral agency  may provide for determination*
that 3d percent of monthly groat Inoamt for
housing costs or the present ratio of housing
payment  to  the  Individual Income Is  or  la
not exceatdve to the other needs of  the  din-
placed family or  Individual.  «t'oh  MI  fond,
clothing,   chlldcare, medical  expenses,  etc.
In  these  canes,  the  he»  displaced
family or Individual
   f Owner  "Owner"  means  k.  purxm  wbo
holdo fee  title., a lire estate, a QC year lease.
 or an Interest In a cooperative hoa»lr»£ proj-
ect which Includes the right of ocou-.*,ncy of
 a dwelling unit, or Is the contrast purchaser
of any such  estate  or Interest, or »ho u pos-
sessed cf  such other proprietary Interest  In
the property acqulr<>d as, In the judp-nent if
the head of the Federal agency, warrants
 consideration  as ownership. In  the case  of
 one who has succeeded to any of the  fore-
 going Interests by devise, bequest. Inheritance
 or operation of law, the tenure of owners: to,
 but not occupancy, of the succeeding ownwr
 ahan  Include me  tenure cf the p.ecedli.K
 owner.

      CHAPTES la. ADMTNUmATIVl KtVITW
   13.1 Procedures, a.  In connection wl'.h a
 direct Federal program or p.x>)e' a
 State  program or project receiving Federal
financial assistance,  the regulations of the
Federal agency administering the program or
project should require an administrative re-
new by the bead of the State agency.
  b. The procedures pertaining  to mAi*tmtm~
tratlve review shall ensure  the' following:
  (1) Prompt consideration  of  all  requMU
for administrative review:
  (3) Prompt written notice  to the claimant
of  any determination mad* In connection
with his  application  This  written  notice
must Innlude a full  explanation concerning
any amount claimed which  has been  disal-
lowed; and
  (8) Prompt  payment  of  any   amount*
which are determined to be due the claimant.
                APPENDIX B
     ST7UUAXV  or
                             CHANGK8
  Chapter 1. Paragraph 1.1 Includes specific
references to real property acquisition pro-
grams and explains the reasons for additional
coverage since the Usuance of OMB Circular
A- 103.
  Paragraph 1.3  Incorporates references to
th«  Office of Federal  Management  Policy,
Qeoieral  Services  Administration.  In place
of the Office of  Management and Budget:
ageacles with programs that result  In  dis-
placement of persons are  Included In addi-
tion to programs (or laud acquisition.
  Paragraph 1 8 IB added  to dlscuns the  his-
tory and  functions of the  Relocation Assist-
ance Implementation Committee.
  Paragraph 1.7  Include*  material format iy
OOVWM!  In tite  circular's  transsalttal latter
aad taMorporatt* appropriate references to
O8A.
  Paragraph It provide* for Federal Regional
Council  coordination activities to aid In Im-
plementing the Uniform Act.
  Chapter  2.  Code  of  Federal   Regulations
citations are given for  the rules of the De-
partment  of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment. (See paragraphs 3.3  and 33)
  Chapter  4  Criteria  for determining the
eligibility of a huntncHH aie provided  In sub-
paragraph 4.3b (RAIC Agreement Number fi) .
   Par.^rtph 4.a adopts similar criteria tor
the existence of farm operations estd for par-
tial taking* of (arm operation* (RAIC Agree-
mentn 4  and 11).
  Chapter 5. Bubparagraph 6.8*  clarlnos sim-
ilar provision in OMB circular A- 103 provid-
ing that the head of the Federal agency may
determine  the  method  of oomputli.g th (4) and (0).
   Subparagraph B 3d provides  for the cora-
 putatlr.Ti  of replacement  housing payments
 on cases going through condemnation (RAIC
 Agreement Number 4) .
   Chapter ,7 Subparagraph 8.Sa(6)  provides
 for the  computation of  the  rental replace-
 ment housing  payment  (RAIC  Agreement
 Number B).
   aubparagraph 62a(0)   provides for  lump
 sum payment, of rental replacement  housing
 payinen',8 (RAIC Agreement Number B) .
   Subparagraph  62b(l/   provides   for the
 computation of the amount of  down  pay-
 ments  made under section 304(2)  (RAIC
 Agreements Numbers a and 10) .
   RAIO -Agreement Number  13 concerns an
 Interpretation of paragraph  6-3. but Is not
 specif cally Incorporated.
   OAnpt«r 7  Paragraph  1 4  lists additional
 nourcec of relocation advisory services
  A listing of Hooetng MM Urban Develop-
ment Regional ana Area Offlow M at October
1078 is provided.
  Ohapter I. All reference* to assurance re-
quirement* no longer applicable  (subsequent
to July  1. 1972)  have been deleted. Sub-
P"f»«*»pa *;2»W  modifies requirements for
ajSBuranoe* from State agencies under sec-
tions  J10 aad 906  aooordlncly.
  Chapter ». Reference* to QM Office of Man-
agement and Budget hat* be«n changed to
the   General   Beivlue*  AtetQlCtratton  as
appropriate.
  Requirements for the rubmlMlon of reports
to HtJD  and H ITU's  report on recommenda-
tions have been deleted (Subparagraph 6.3 b
and c), a* have been  requirement* for nar-
rative comments from agencies  on their Im-
plementing  regulations  and   staffing  and
training program*  (Subparagraph 9.3b (2)
and (3)).
  The submission of published  articles deal-
Ing with the Act 1*  no longer required. Cer-
tain  Information  blocks  in  Exhibit  1, Part
I of  A-103. have been eliminated: note  5.
Figure 9.4.3 has been revised to provide for
the computation of payments made In excels
of the appraised value of the property
  Chapter 10. Paragraph 10.3 provides for the
use of the current Issue of the  Uniform Ap-
praisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisi-
tion
  Chapter 11.  Revisions provide for further
clarification  of the term  "State  agency"
(subparagrafib, HJto)  and Vnt qualifications
of raobfl* home* a*  dw4AUz«i {•Ubparagraph

  (FR Doc.74-24003 Piled  10-18-14:8:46 ami
                                  FEDERAL Kt'OISTEJ, VOL  3V,  NO  204—MONDAY, OCTOBER 21,
-------
                       IV.




PLANNING AND STATE PROGRAM ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS
-------
                 IV. 1

                 MONDAY, MAY 13, 1974

                 WASHINGTON. D.C

                 Volume 39 • Number 93   /.J


                 PART IV
^
*\
                 ENVIRONMENTAL
                    PROTECTION
                      AGENCY
                   AREAWIDE WASTE
                      TREATMENT
                     MANAGEMENT
                  PLANNING  AGENCIES

                     Interim Grant Regulations
No. 93—Pt. IV	1
-------
17202
     RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
     PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
             ASSISTANCE
Subpart F—Grants to Designated Areawide
  Waste Treatment Management Planning
  Agencies; Grant  Applications;  Grants;
  Plan Content and Approval
         INTERIM REGULATIONS

  The following regulations are promul-
gated as interim  regulations by the  En-
vironmental  Protection  Agency.  These
regulations set  forth the procedures for
providing grants  to approved designated
planning agency (ies)  for  the develop-
ment  and operation of  a continuing
planning process intrinsic to the develop-
ment of an approvable  areawide waste
treatment management plan and provide
criteria for the designation of manage-
ment agencies to carry out the plan.  The
regulations also  specify  the supporting
data needed  in a grant  application as
well as to the content and output of the
areawide plan  to be developed.  Due to
the fact that area and agency designa-
tions are in the process of being approved
and grant applications from the approved
designated agencies  are imminent, these
regulations are hereby adopted  as in-
terim. Interested parties and government
agencies are encouraged to submit writ-
ten comments,  suggestions or objections
to the Director,  Grants  Administration
Division,   Environmental   Protection
Agency,  Washington, D.C.  20460.  All
comments, suggestions or objections re-
ceived on or before June 27, 1974 will be
considered.
  The purpose 01 section 208 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (the Act)  is to encourage
and  facilitate the development and im-
plementation of  areawide waste treat-
ment management plans at the local level
in designated  areas, and  by the State
outside such  areas. Regulations for  area
and agency designations (40  CFR^Part
126) were promulgated on September 14,
1973, in accordance with section 208(a)
of the Act.
  Section 208  establishes  a mechanism
for intensive water quality/waste control
planning  and  management.  Through
the Federal assistance provisions, funds
are provided to assist local areas in ad-
dressing in a sophisticated manner diffi-
cult  urban/industrial  and   nonpoint
source water quality problems that can-
not be solved through the  application of
statutory base  level  effluent limitations.
  Under the interim regulations and in
accordance with sections 208 (f) (1) of
the Act, funds  will be provided to desig-
nated, local planning agencies for a pe-
riod of up to 24 months to develop an
initial plan for a designated area  with
concurrent further  development  of the
planning process. For obligations made
during FY 1974 and FY 1975, the Federal
share  shall be  100 percent of the eligi-
ble costs of the project.
  Planning grants under section 208 of
the  Act will not be awarded to States
for 208 planning in nondesignated areas.
Funds provided under section 106 of the
Act,   however,  may  be" used for this
purpose.
  The regulations also provide  for the
involvement of the States in the grant
application process and in the develop-
ment and review of the 208 plan. It was
felt that to have a useful areawide wahte
treatment management plan, the local
planning effort should be closely  coordi-
nated w;th  the overall State planning
effort.
  In  addition,  the interim  regulations
require  that the  planning  agency make
provisions  for  an Areawide  Planning
Advisory Committee which must  include
representatives of the State and public
and  may include representatives of the
U.S.  Departments of  Agriculture, Army
and  the Interior and  such other  Federal
and local agencies as may be appropriate.
  With respect to the facilities planning
conducted during the development of an
areawide waste treatment management
plan, the regulations provide that gener-
ally  such planning for construction an-
ticipated within the five year period fol-
lowing  approval of  the plan must be
accomplished within the scope of the 208
planning process and  within the scope of
the  208 grant  assistance provided that
detailed engineering  shall be required
only to the  extent deemed necessary by
the EPA Regional Administrator. How-
ever, where facilities  planning has been
initiated and is substantially underway
at the time of award of a 208 grant, such
planning may  be continued and incor-
porated in the areawide waste treatment
management planning process and plan.
Where the Regional Administrator deter-
mines that Step 1 construction grant
assistance should be utilized  for facil-
ities planning activities  during  the 208
planning process he  may award Step  1
grant assistance for such facilities plan-
ning, provided  that such planning does
not  duplicate any  work funded  by the
208   grant.   The designated  planning
agency  must be afforded opportunity to
comment prior to award of any Step  2
or Step 3 construction grant assistance
within  the  designated 208 area during
the 208 planning process. Upon approval
of the  208 plan, no  construction grant
assistance may be awarded within the
208  area until  the  project has been
brought into conformity with such plan.
  Effective date: May 13, 1974.
  MAY 7, 1974.
                     JOHN QUARLES,
                Acting Administrator.
Subpart F—Grants to Designated Areawide Waste
  Treatment  Management  Planning  Agencies;
  Grant Applications; Grants;  Plan Content and
  Approval

Sec.
35.1050    Purpose.
35.1051    Authority.
35.1052    Allocation and allotments.
35.1053    Eligibility.
35.1054    Applications.
35 1O54-1  Preappllcation requirements.
35 1054-2  Application  requirements.
35 1055    Revision  or amendment of ap-
            plication.
Sec.
35 1O56    Review, certification and appioval
           of grant application
35.1056-1  Stain review and certification  ui
           applications  from areas deMK-
           nated by the governor is)
351056-2  State comments on application"
           from  areas designated by local
           officials
35 1056 3  KPA rev-lev, and apploval.
35 1057    Amount of grant
35.1058    Period of grant.
35.1059    Payments.
35 1059 1  Establishment of initial fund
35.1059-2  Request  for replenishment  of
           funds.
35 1059-3  Federal  retention of grant f incls
35 1060    Reports.
35 1061    Suspension and termination  of
           Brunt
35 1062    Allowable costs.
35 1063    Submission of the plan
35 1063 -1  Plans for intrastate areas
35 1063-2  Plans for interstate area.1
35.1064    Areawide waste treatment  man-
           agement Planning: Content and
           outputs.
351064-1  Content of areawide wasu treat-
           ment management plan
35.1064-2  Revisions of plans.
35.1065    Authority of States for non-pomr
           source planning  in designated
           areas.
35.1066    Designation of  management agei.-
           cles
35.1066-1  Intrastate planning areas
35.1066-2  Interstate planning areas
35 1067    EPA review of  plan and designa-
           tion of management agencie,
35 1067-1  Submittal of  certified plan and
           designation  of proposed man-
           agement agency (ies).
35.1067-2  Dual approval required.
35.1067-3  Review and approval of plan
35.1067-4  Review  and approval ol  waste
           treatment management  agen-
           cies
35.1068    Disputes.
35.1070    Annual  update of  plan  [Re-
           served |.
35.1080    Grants  for update of plan  |Re-
           served).

  AUTHOSITT:  Sec. 208, Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972

Subpart F—Grants to Designated Areawide
  Waste Treatment Management Planning
  Agencies;  Grant Applications;  Grants;
  Plan Content and Approval

§ 35.1050 Purpose.

  The purpose of section 208 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 is to encourage and facili-
tate the development  and  implementa-
tion of  areawide waste treatment man-
agement  plans at the  local  level. This
subpart  supplements the EPA general
grant regulations and  procedures >Part
30 of this chapter) and establishes and
codifies   policies  and   procedures  for
grants to an approved  planning agency,
upon approval of applications, for the
development and operation  of a continu-
ing planning process   required for the
development of an approvable areawide
•waste treatment management plan.

§ 35.1051 Authority.

  These provisions for grants to support
the development  and  operation  of  an
areawide waste treatment  management
planning process  are issued under section
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL  39, NO. 93—MONDAY, MAY 13, 1974
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                       1720.'s
 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
 trol Act Amendments of 1972.
 § 35.1052   Allocations and allotments.
   (a >  Upon approval of a planning area
 and agency  designation pursuant to Part
 126 of this chapter, there will be reserved,
 for subsequent issuance to the Regional
 Administrator, an  amount of contract
 authority estimated to cover the reason-
 able  cost of  the  continuing  planning
 process for a designated area.
    Upon completion of review and
 negotiation  of a grant application for
 the continuing  planning  process for  a
 designated  area, and  at  such time  as
 the  Regional  Administrator  is   pre-
 pared  to make a grant  award, the
 Regional Administrator shall request an
 Advice of Allowance authorizing the obli-
 gation of contract authority to cover the
 amount of the negotiated grant agree-
 ment. In no case will a grant agreement
 be executed before an Advice of Allow-
 ance is issued.
 § 35.1053   Eligibility.
  An applicant agency must be the agency
 designated by  the Governor or appropri-
 ate local officials in conformance with
 §§126.11 or 126.16  of  this chapter and
 approved by the Administrator as the
 official areawide waste treatment man-
 agement planning  agency for  the area
 and must agree to develop a plan and
 a continuing  planning process meeting
 the requirements of this subpart for the
 entire designated area.
 § 35.1054   Applications.
 § 35.1054—1   Prcapplication    Require-
    ments.
  Any agency applying for an  areawide
 waste treatment  management  planning
 grant shall:
  (a) Comply with all applicable require-
 ments of Office of Management  and
 Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-95.
  (b)  In the case of an area designated
 by the Governor(s), the application and
 supporting data shall be submitted to the
 State agency (ies) designated by the Gov-
ernor(s)  as having review jurisdiction
over the planning area. In addition,  in
such cases in  interstate planning areas,
 the applicant  shall submit the applica-
 tion to the Governor of the State wherein
the greatest portion of the  population
 within the planning area resides.
  (c)  In the case of an area designated
by the chief elected officials, the appli-
 cation shall  be submitted directly to the
 appropriate  Regional  Administrator  of
EPA and the appropriate Governor(s)
shall te notified of the submission.
 § 35.1054—2   Application Requirement.
  Applications to EPA shall be made  In
 triplicate on such forms as the Admin-
 istrator may prescribe  and shall include
 the following substantiating data:
  (a)  In'the case of an area designated
 by the Governor's), a statement of certi-
 fication or refusal  of certification  sub-
 mitted by the chief official(s) of the re-
 viewing agency (ies) designated by the
 Governor(s) of the  State(s) wherein the
area is located. Each certificatior. or re-
fusal thereof, shall include a statement
that the State has reviewed the applica-
tion and finds: (1)  That  the proposed
work complies or does not comply with all
State requirements, including any appli-
cable 303(e)  plan(s) prepared under 40
CFR Part 131; (2)  that  the proposed
planning work  program is or is not ade-
quate and necessary  to accomplish the
development of a plan under Section 208;
(3) that, insofar as is known, the plan-
ning will or will not duplicate any work
which has been done or is  being done to
meet the facilities planning requirements
of §§35.917-35.917-9;  and <4i  that the
State either certifies or does not cer  fy
that the grant application should be ap-
proved by EPA.
   (b) Evidence that all requirements of
OMB Circular No. A-95 have been met.
    A statement by i-he applicant that
the proposed activity is consistent with
and  will be in coordination with  other
environmental plans i which include land
use plans) and has been coordinated with
related planning and development that is
being done under  other Federal assist-
ance programs and any State and local
programs which  affect the designated
area.
   (d> A statement by the applicant that
provisions have been, or will be, made for
an Areawide Planning Advisory Commit-
tee which must include repersentatives
of the State and public and may include
representatives of the U.S  Departments
of Agriculture, Army  and  the  Interior
and such other Federal and local agencies
as may  be appropriate in the opinion of
EPA, the State (s)  and the applicant
agency.
   (e) A statement by the applicant that
the planning process will become finan-
cially self-sustaining and provide for an-
nual update of the plan once the initial
plan is developed and approved.
   (f)  A work plan which  contains the
following:
   (1) Description of the objectives and
scope of the waste treatment manage-
ment planning process;
   (2) Description of all work performed
to date  which  will be  used in the plan
development;
   (3) Description of the proposed  plan-
ning process which will be utilized to   Intrastate planning  areas. The
State reviewing agency designated by the
Governor shall, within 45  days after re-
ceipt of the application, review the ap-
plication and either certify or refuse to
certify the application and proposed work
program as set forth in § 35.1054-2< a >.
Upon certification or refusal thereof, the
reviewing agency will either,  at the ap-
plicant's direction,  return the applica-
tion  to the applicant for  forwarding of
two  copies  to the appropriate EPA Re-
gional Administrator, together with all
certifications, or forward  two copies of
the application and certifications or re-
fusals  thereof to the appropriate  EPA
Regional Administrator. If the applica-
tion  is not-certified, the reviewing agency
shall notify  both the  appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator and  the appli-
cant as to  the specific reasons for non-
certification  and  specify the changes
which are needed for State certification
of the application.
  (b) Interstate planning areas. The ap-
plicant shall submit its application to the
reviewing agency designated by the Gov-
ernor of the State  wherein the greatest
portion of  the population resides. This
reviewing agency shall, within 15 days
of receipt  of the  application, forward
copies of the application to the agency
designated by the Governor^) of each
other  State  having jurisdiction  within
the planning area, and shall serve as co-
ordinator for the bi-  or multi-State re-
                                FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL.  39, NO. 93—MONDAY, MAY  13, 1974
-------
17204
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
view. Each State shall review the appli-
cation and within 45 days  provide the
State coordinating  the  review with its
certification  or  refusal  thereof  as  set
forth in | 35.1054-2(a). The coordinating
State shall within 15 days forward two
copies  of  the application, supporting
documents and all State certifications or
refusals thereof to the applicant for for-
warding to the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator. In the event that  one or
more States  does not certify the appli-
cation, each  State refusing  certification
shall specify its reasons  in  writing and
advise the applicant through the coordi-
nating State, of the specific changes
needed to gain its certification. The co-
ordinating State, in  turn, shall forward
such notice(s) of  non-certification to
the  applicant and the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator.  At the request
of all of the States involved and with the
approval of the appropriate Regional Ad-
rmnistrator(s), an existing, recognized,
interstate agency may act in the coordi-
nating role on behalf of those States.
§35.1056-2   Slate  comments on appli-
     cations  From areas  designated by
     local officials.
  In all cases concerning applications in
areas designated  by  locally  elected offi-
cials, the State shall review and comment
upon the application as provided for b>
OMB Circular A-95.
§ 35.1056-3   EPA re\iew and  appro\ul.
  (a) EPA shall not accept for review for
the  purpose  of making a grant any in-
complete  application or  an application
unaccompanied by all State certifications
or  refusals  thereof  which have been
submitted.
  (b) The Regional  Administrator shall
review the  application and supporting
documentation to determine its compli-
ance with the applicable requirements of
the  Act and  this subpart, the  suitability
of the proposed programs to successfully
meet the required outputs of section 208
of the  Act  and  this subpart and  the
costs of the proposed program.
   (c)  Generally  within 45  days after
receiving  the application the Regional
Administrator shall:
  (1) Award a grant to the applicant in
the  amount that he finds meets the re-
quirements of § 35.1057.
   (2) Notify  the applicant that the grant
application is deficient in one or more
respects and specify  in which ways the
application must be modified to  receive
EPA approval. Copies of such notifica-
tions will be forwarded to all  concerned
States at the time the applicant is noti-
fied of EPA action.
§ 35.1057  Amount of grant.
  For grants awarded during the fiscal
years ending on June 30, 1974, and June
30,  1975, the rate of Federal  assistance
furnished to a grantee shall be 100 per
centum of the EPA approved  eligible
and reasonable costs of developing  or
modifying an initial  areawide  waste
treatment management plan meeting the
requirements of this subpart and operat-
ing  an approved planning process
§ 35.1058  Period of grunt.
  Federal assistance shall be for a budget
period beginning the date of execution of
the grant agreement and ending the date
which the plan is approved by the appro-
priate Regional Administrator or within
24 months, whichever period is less.
§ 35.1059  Payment.
§ 35.1059-1  Establishment  of  initial
     fund.
  Payment will be made in advance to
the grantee by the establishment and at
least quarterly replenishment of a fund
that  shall  be  based on a  negotiated
amount set forth in the grant agreement
and which should not exceed 10 percent
of the grant amount, unless a larger ini-
tial  percentage is necessary for the  ac-
complishment of the grant  objectives.
§ 35.1059-2  Request for replenishment
     of funds.
  Requests for replenishment  of funds
shall be made by the grantee on such
form as prescribed by the Administrator.
Each request for replenishment of funds
shall include a statement on the status
of the project related to the approved
milestones set forth  in  the grant appli-
cation. If the project is  behind schedule,
the statement should identify the specific
tasks that  have been delayed  and give
the reasons for the delay.
§ 35.1059-3  Federal retention of grunt
     funds.
   In accordance  with the  provisions of
§ 30.602-1 of  this chapter, an amount not
to exceed 10  percent of  the grant award
amount may  be withheld for noncompli-
ance with  a program  objective,  grant
condition or reporting requirement.

§35.1060  Reports.
   Within 30  days following  the end of
each 6 month period after the effective
date of  the  grant, the  grantee agency
shall prepare and submit for review by
EPA a  semi-annual report of progress
and  expenditures as compared to  the
scheduling of approved milestones in the
work plan. Lack of scheduled progress
and  other  problems  shall  be  fully
explained.
§35.1061  Suspension  and  termination
     of grant.
   In accordance  with the  provisions of
§S 30.902 and 30.903 of this Chapter, the
Regional Administrator may suspend or
terminate any grant awarded  pursuant
to this Subpart.

§35.1062  Allowable costs.
   In general, eligible and ineligible costs
shall be determined in  accordance with
§ 30.701  of this Chapter and by demon-
stration that the type and degree of work
is necessary  for successful completion of
the project,  and  that the costs are rea-
sonable  with respect to the product or
service  to be obtained. While  costs in-
curred  as a  result  of  following an  ap-
proved work  program would generally be
allowable,  provided  that  they  are  not
prohibited  elsewhere by Federal,  State
or local law,  regulations or rule, the costs
incurred by activity related to the fol-
lowing shall be ineligible:
  (a) All costs incurred in development
of a grant application for an areawide
waste treatment management planning
grant.
  Cb) All costs incurred in sewer evalua-
tion surveys as required under 5 35 9'J7-2.
  ic) All  costs  incurred  in  detailed
sewer system mapping and surve\ .s t here-
for.
  (d> All costs related to sewage collec-
tion systems at less than the trunk line
level.
  (e> All costs related  to obtaining  or
providing information for sewer systems
other than the costs of determining the
following items in  sufficient detail  to
make informed judgments on the cost ei-
fectiveness  of  available  alternathe.s:
tributary or service areas, routes, sizes,
capacities  and  flows,  critical  control
elevations  required  to  show  ability  to
serve tributary areas, lengths  staging.
major impediments to construction, and
costs of construction and operation. Data
conc-ernins lift stations shall be limited
to location, size, energy requirements and
capital  and operating costs  (Costs  of
gathering and analyzing information re-
quired for economic, environmental and
social evaluations shall be eligible. >
  'ft All costs related  to obtaining or
providing treatment works other  than
the  costs of  determining the following
items in sufficient detail  to  make in-
formed judgments on the cost effective-
ne.sl of  available alternatives: Location.
.site plot plan which shows  adequacy of
the site including provision for  expan-
sion, process flow diagram, identification
of unit  process, type, number and size of
major units, capacities and  flows, antic-
ipated effect of treatment,  staging and
capital  and operating costs and energy
requirements. (Costs of gathering and
analyzing information required  for eco-
nomic, environmental and social evalua-
tions shall be eligible.)
  (g» All costs of special studies for the
specific  benefit of individual, industrial
or  commercial establishments.
  < h) Air costs of activities  which are
primarily of a research nature.
§ 35.1063  Submission of the plan.
§ 35.1063—1   Plans for  intrastate areas.
  No later than  two years  after  the
planning process is in operation, as evi-
denced by award of a grant, three copies
of a plan and local governmental recom-
mendations thereon, in accordance with
5 35.1064-1, shall be submitted to the Re-
gional Administrator through the State
reviewing agency along with certification
of approval by the Governor of the State
wherein the area is located. The certifi-
cation document shall include certifica-
•tion that the State has  reviewed the
plan and:
  (a> Has found the plan to  be in con-
formance  with the  provisions  of  the
State basin plan(s) and the State Pro-
gram prepared  under section 106, and
that the plan will  be accepted as a de-
tailed  portion of the State plans when
approved by EPA;
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 93—MONDAY, MAY 13, 1974
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        1720r>
   (b)  Has found the  plan to  be  inter-
 nally consistent  with  the  water quality
 control needs of the area;
   (c)  Has found the plan consistent with
 all State and  local legislation, regula-
 tions or other requirements or  plans re-
 garding land use and  protection of the
 environment;
   (d)  Has found that  the  plan provides
 adequate basis for selection and designa-
 tion of management agencies to be  desig-
 nated under section 208(c) of the Act:
 and
   (e)  Has approved the plan.  If disap-
 proval is  necessary, that is if  no  certi-
 fication of approval can be issued by the
 Governor due to failure of the grantee to
 comply with one or more  of these pro-
 visions, the Governor shall notify  the
 Regional Administrator and the grantee
 in writing that the plan is  deficient, and
 specify in which  ways  the  plan must be
 modified to  receive State certification of
 approval.
 § 35.1063—2  1'luns for interstate  areas.
  No later than two years after  the plan-
 ning process is  in operation, three copies
 of the plan  and local governmental rec-
 ommendations  thereon and one  addi-
 tional copy  of the plan and recommen-
 dations for  each concerned State shall
 be  submitted  to the  reviewing agency
 designated by the Governor of the State
 wherein the greatest portion of popula-
 tion within  the  planning  area resides.
 That agency shall act  as the coordinat-
 ing agency and shall forward  one copy
 of the plan to the reviewing agency des-
 ignated by the Governor of each  other
 State wherein a portion of the  planning
 area is located. Each State shall review
 the  plan  and shall, on behalf of that
 State,  furnish  the coordinating agency
 with certifications as set forth in  5 35.-
 1063-1. The coordinating  State agency
 shall forward copies of  each certification
 to the grantee agency  and  shall, at that
 time, forward two copies of the certifi-
 cations and the plan and  local govern-
 mental recommendations thereon to the
 appropriate  EPA Regional Administra-
 tor.  At the request of  all the States in-
 volved, and with the approval of the Re-
 gional Administrators,  an  existing, rec-
 ognized, interstate agency may act in the
 coordinating role on  behalf   of  those
 States.
 § 35.1064  Areawidc   waste   treatment
     management planning: Content and
     outputs.
  The purpose of areawide planning ac-
tivities is the development of a  coor-
dinated,  viable,  management  system
 capable of organizing,  directing, imple-
 menting  and maintaining  an  effective
program of pollution  abatement  and
preservation  of  existing   high quality
water in areas having  substantial water
 quality control problems.

 § 35.1064—1   Content of areawide  waste
     treatment management  plan.
  Each agency  receiving assistance un-
 der  a  grant for  areawide  waste  treat-
 ment management planning  shall  de-
 velop and submit to the Regional Ad-
ministrator an areawide waste treatment
management  plan consistent with this
Subpart  and  the applicable require-
ments of  8§ 35.917 to 35.917-9. The plan
shall include:
   (a)  An  identification ol the  antici-
pated  municipal and industrial treat-
ment  works construction  necessary  to
meet the  requirements of Title II of the
Act within the designated planning area
over a twenty year period;
   (b)  Those portions of facilities plan-
ning in compliance with § 35.917-l(a)-
 the costs of which are allowable un-
der § 35.1062 for those facilities for which
Step 2 or Step 3 grant  assistance is ex-
pected to be  awarded during the  five-
year  period  following  the section  208
plan approval.
   (c) The identification of required ur-
ban storm water runoff  control systems;
   (d) The establishment of construction
priorities  for  treatment works  for  the
five-year  period  following the year  of
plan approval and a proposed schedule
of  completion   of  major   treatment
works  over the  twenty-year period fol-
lowing submission of the plan;
   (e) The establishment of a  regulatory
program to:
   (1) Provide that waste treatment man-
agement shall be  on an areawide basis
and provide identification and evaluation
of and control or treatment for all point
and non-point sources of pollution, in-
cluding inplace or accumulated pollu-
tion sources, as shall be required under
guidelines published by -the Administra-
tor pursuant to sections 208 and  304(e)
of the  Act. (Special regulatory consider-
ation, including land use controls, is re-
quired  for sources  further  specified
under  paragraphs  'g)  through  (1)  of
this section);
   (2) Regulate  the location,  modifica-
tion, and  construction of any facilities
within such area  which may result  in
any discharge in  such  area  including,
as appropriate, regulation of any future
increase in waste loads and sources; and
   (3) Assure that any industrial or com-
mercial  wastes  discharged   into  any
publicly owned treatment works in such
area must meet applicable  pretreatment
requirements established in the plan.
   (f)  The identification  of those agen-
cies necessary to (1) construct, operate,
and maintain all  facilities required by
the plan,  and  (2)  otherwise  carry out
the plan;
   (g) A process to d) identify, if  appro-
priate, agriculturally  and silviculturally
related  non-point sources,  of  pollution,
including  runoff from manure disposal
areas,  and from land used for livestock
and crop  production, and  (2) set forth
procedures and methods (including land
use requirements)  to control to the ex-
tent feasible such  sources:
   (h) A process to (1) identify, if  appro-
priate, mine-related sources of pollution
including  new, current,  and abandoned
surface and underground  mine  runoff,
and (2) set forth procedures and meth-
ods (including land use requirements)  to
control to  the  extent feasible such
sources:
   MI A process to U i identify construc-
tion activity related sources of pollution,
and <2) set forth procedures and meth-
ods (including land use requirements* to
control  to  the  extent  feasible  such
sources;
   iji A process to < 1) identify, U appro-
priate, salt water intrusion  into rivers
lakes and estuaries resulting from reduc-
tion of fresh  water flow from any cause.
including irrigation,  obstruction, ground
water extraction, and diversion, and (2>
set forth procedures and methods to con-
trol such intrusion to the extent feasible
where such procedures and methods are
otherwise a part of the  waste treatment
management plan:
   ik) A process to control the disposi-
tion of all residual  waste generated in
such  area  or imported into such  area
which could  affect  either  .surface  or
ground water quality;
   (1)  A process to control  the disposal 01
pollutants on  land or in subsurface ex-
cavations within such  area to protect
ground and surface water quality:
   
-------
17206
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
§ 35.1064-2  Revisions of plan*.
  If, in the judgment of the Regional
Administrator,  State  Governor(s)  or
applicant, substantial changes have oc-
curred which warrant revision or amend-
ment of the approved  plan,  the plan
shall be revised or amended  and sub-
mitted for review  in the  same manner
specified in this Subpart for the original
plan.
§ 35.1065  Authority of States for non-
    point source planning in designated
    areas.
  Whenever the Governor of any State
determines  (and  notifies  the Regional
Administrator)  that consistency with a
Statewide regulatory program under sec-
tion 303 so requires, the requirements of
} 35.1064-l   through   (1)  shall  be
developed and  submitted by  the  Gov-
ernor to the Regional Administrator for
application  to  all regions within such
State.  All  requirements  of  such State
programs shall be incorporated into each
affected areawide  plan. The plan shall
set forth such  additional local actions
and programs as may be necessary for
implementation of the plan developed by
the State.

§ 35.1066  Designation  of management
     agencies.
§ 35.1066—1  Intrastatc  planning areas.
  The Governor of the State in consulta-
tion  with  '.he  designated  planning
agency, affected local governments and
following the public partication require-
ments  set forth under Part 105 of this
chapter, at the time the plan is sub-
mitted to the Administrator shall desig-
nate one or more waste treatment man-
agement agencies  (which  may  be  an
existing or newly created  local, regional
or State agency or political subdivision)
for the designated area. Such  agency or
agencies shall, individually or in aggre-
gate, have adequate authority to meet
the requirements to carry out the pro-
visions of section 208(c) (2) of the Act.
§ 35.1066-2  Interstate  planning areas.
  The Governors of the States wherein
the planning area is located shall either
mutually designate one or more waste
treatment management agencies as  set
forth in § 35.1066-1 or shall; after agree-
ment among the Governors and  the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Administrators,
individually designate one or more waste
treatment management agencies within
each State pursuant to the requirements
of 5 35 1066-1.
                           pr»sal required.
   The  appropriate Regional  Adminis-
trator shall neither approve a certified
plan unless concurrently  approving all
designated management  agencies,  nor
approve the designation of management
agencies unless concurrently approving
a  certified  plan.
§35.1067—3  Review  und  approval of
     plan.
  The   Regional   Administrator's  ap-
proval of  the plan will be based upon
the  State(s)  certification of approval
and EPA's  review  of the submission for
conformance with provisions of section
201 and 208 of  the Act and the require-
ments of this Part and other applicable
regulations. Within  120 days after  re-
ceiving  the submittal, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall:
   (a)   Notify  the  State's)  and   the
grantee of approval of the plan; or
   (b)   Notify  the  State's)  and   the
grantee that the  submittal is  deficient
in one or more respects and specify  the
ways in which the  submittal  must be
modified to receive EPA approval; or
  (c)  Notify  the  grantee  and  the
State(s)  that the designation of wa.sU
treatment management agencies cannot
be approved,  thereby  delaying  further
consideration of the plan until such time
as deficiencies in such designations are
rectified.
§35.1067—1  Keview  and  approval   of
     waste treatment management agen-
     cies.
  The  Regional  Administrator's  ap-
proval will be  based upon the require-
ments set forth in section 208(ci<2)  of
the Act. Within 120 days after receiving
the submittal of the designations the Re-
gional Administrator shall:
  (a i  Notify  the  Governor(s)   and
grantee of approval of  the designations,
or
  'b)  Notify  the  Governor(s)   and
grantee that the designation submittal
is deficient in one or more respects and
specify the ways in which the submit-
tal must be modified to receive-EPA ap-
proval; or
  
-------
                                                    IV.  2
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS

                                         that  the   Environmental  Protection
                                         Agency was proposing policies and pro-
                                         cedures for the designation of areawide
                                         waste treatment management pursuant
                                         to section 208(a) of the Federal Water
                                         Pollution Control  Act Amendments  of
                                         1972 (86 Stat. 816 (33 U.8.C. 1251, 1288
PART  126—AREAWIDE  WASTE TREAT-
  MENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREAS
  AND  RESPONSIBLE PLANNING AGEN-
  CIES

  On May 30.1973. notice was published
in the F»UAL Rmsna, 38 PR 14230.
   The regulations are designed to serve
 as guides for the Governors of the States
 and chief elected officials of general pur-
 pose local government  in  identifying
 areas which, as a result of urban-indus-
 trial concentrations or other  factors,
 have substantial water quality control
 problems which require an areawide ap-
 proach in planning for and implementing
 corrective action, and  in  designating
 agencies  capable of  developing waste
 treatment management plans for such
 areas.
   In view of the intent of the legislation,
 the   Environmental Protection  Agency
 believes  that an areawide water quality
 management program should be carried
 out  to gain the following objectives:
   Provide cost  effective, point  source
 treatment and  control for  areas of ur-
 ban-industrial   concentrations  having
 substantial water quality control prob-
 lems.
   Provide for control of nonpoint sources
 in urban-industrial and  other  areas
 where such controls are required includ-
 ing prevention of water quality problems
 in the future.
   Provide for  coordinated  waste treat-
 ment management in  such areas.
   Written comments  on  the proposed
 rulemaking were invited and  received
 from interested parties. A number of ver-
bal comments also were received. The En-
 vironmental Protection Agency has care-
 fully considered all submitted comments.
 All written comments are on file with the
 Agency. Certain of these comments have
 been adopted or substantially satisfied by
 editorial change, deletions from, or addi-
 tions to  the regulations. These changes
 are discussed below.
   (a)  A substantial water  quality con-
 trol problem was further defined to indi-
 cate that the problem exists where water
quality has been degraded to the extent
 that  desired uses are  Impaired or pre-
 cluded. The Identification of water qual-
 ity segments under 40 CPR Part 130 or
 groundwater pollution problems are mea-
 sures of the extent of the problem.
   (b) The definition of local units of
 government that may respond to indicate
intent to join together in the planning
process now Includes both general pur-
pose and other appropriate units of local
government. (See S 126.lO(c>.)
   (c) The criteria for designation of a
planning  agency now includes the con-
sideration of an existing agency's cap-
ability for implementing the plan or hav-
ing the plan Implemented.  (See  } 126-
 11 (b).).
   (d) The requirements for the submis-
sion of information on 208 planning areas
and agencies have been revised to require
a  statement relating the boundaries of
the area  to the SMSA but not to require
conformance to SMSA boundaries. (See
 f 126.15.)
                                25681

   (e) The Governor's right to nondeslg-
natc in intrastate areas only is clarified.
(See 5 126.16.)
    Where  208  planning  area  and
agency designations  are  made  by local
public officials, the Governor's views on
these designations may be made to the
Administrator.
   (g)  The Administrator's approval  or
disapproval actions of areas and agencies
will be published in the FEDERAL REGIS-
TER. (See 9 126.17.)
   (h)  The requirements for public par-
ticipation as  set forth  in 40  CFR, Part
105 shall be followed.
   Effective date.—September  14,1973.
   Because of the importance of promptly
making known to States, local units  of
government and  other interests the con-
tents of these regulations in  order that
area and agency designations  may  be
made under section 208(a) of the Act, the
Administrator finds good cause to declare
the regulations effective on September 14,
1973.

   Dated September 4,1973.

                     JOHN QUARLES,
                Acting Administrator.
   Subpart A—Scope and Purpose; Definition*
Sec.
126.1   Scope and Purpose.
126.2  Definitions.
Subpart  B—Procedure* for Designation of  208
   Planning Area* and Agencie* Responsible for
  Jtannlng
126.10  Criteria for determination ot 208
         planning areas.
126.11  Criteria for designation  of  agencies
         responsible for planning.
126.12  Procedure  for designation  of Intra-
         state 208 planning  areas  and
         agencies responsible for planning.
126.13  Procedure  for designation  of Inter-
         state 208  planning  areas  and
         agencies responsible for planning.
126.14  Nondcslgnation of 208 planning areas
         and/or agencies by Oovernor(s).
126.15  Submissions of 208  planning areas
         and  agencies responsible for plan-
         ning.
126.16  Procedure  for  designation of 208
         planning areas and agencies  re-
         sponsible for planning  by the chief
         elected officials of general purpose
         local  government.
126.17  Review of submissions.
126.18  Revisions.
   Subpart C—State Planning in Nondesignated
                 Areas
126.20  Determination of  planning  agencies
         in nondeslgnated  areas.
      Subpart D—Public Participation
126.30  Public participation requirements In
         designation of 208 planning areas
         and   designation  of   agencies
         responsible for  planning.
  Subpart E—Assistance to Designated Agencies
126.40  Determination of eligibility.
   AUTHORITY.—Sec. 208 and 601, 86 Stat., 816,
(33 U.S.C. 1251,1288(a) (1)).

Subpart A—Scope and Purpose; Definitions

§  126.1  Scope and purpose.

   This   part   establishes regulations
specifying procedural and  other elements
and criteria for the use  of State Gov-
ernors and chief elected officials  of gen-
eral purpose  local government  hi  the
designation of the areas, Including their
                              FfDERAL REGISTER, VOL 3«, NO.  178—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1973
-------
25682
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
boundaries,  requiring  areawide plan-
ning for waste treatment  management
pursuant to section 208 of the Act and
designation  of  Agencies responsible  for
such planning. This part provides that
each State should comply  with the  re-
quirements of this Part not later than
180 days after the date of publication
of this part.
§ 126.2  Definition*.
  As  used  in tills part,  the following
terms shall have the meanings set forth
below:
   (a) The term "Act" means the Fed-
eral  Water  Pollution  Control  Act
Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat.  816  (33
U.S.C. 1251, 1288(8) (D).
  (b) The  term "EPA" means the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
  (c) The term "Administrator" means
the Administrator of  the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
  (d) The term  "208 planning areas"
means the area designated under section
208(a) (2),  (3), or (4)  of the Act.
Subpart B—Procedures for Designation of
  208 Planning Areas and  Agencies  Re-
  sponsible for Planning
% 126.10  Criteria for determination  of
     208 planning ureas.
  The following criteria will be utilized
In designation of 208 planning areas.
  (a) A Preference will be given by  the
Administrator, in approving designation,
to areas of urban-industrial concentra-
tions, because  of the  Act's  legislative
history  and in view of the institutional
nature  of  urban-industrial  concentra-
tions. For this purpose an urban-indus-
trial concentration is that portion of a
standard metropolitan  statistical area
(SMSA—as  defined  by the  Office  of
Management and Budget), or those por-
tions of  SMSA's, having  substantial
concentrations of population and manu-
facturing production or  other factors
which result in substantial  water quality
control  problems. The  entire SMSA(s)
may be designated as  the planning area.
Such areas may be increased  to include
areas outside the  SMSA(s) which have
substantial water quality control prob-
lems  resu1 'ng  from  concentrations  of
population and  manufacturing activity
or  other factors  and which are con-
tiguous to the SMSA(s);
   (b) The area must have  a substan-
tial  water  quality control problem. A
substantial water quality control prob-
lem shall be considered to exist  only
where the complexity and nature of the
water quality control problem  requires
an areawide waste treatment manage-
ment plan, and where water quality has
been  degraded to the  extent that  de-
sired uses are impaired or precluded. A
measure of the extent of the  problem
includes those areas  where:
   (DA substantial portion of the major
receiving waters available for waste dis-
charge from the area has been classified
by the State as a water quality segment,
after adequate  analysis demonstrating
this classification, under  the  require-
ments of Part 130 of this chapter, or;
  (2)  A  substantial  and  extensive
groundwater pollution problem exists; or
where  the dependence of an  area on
groundwater makes it  essential that its
ground water resource  be given the nec-
essary protection from pollution it re-
quires.
  (c) The affected general purpose or
other appropriate units of local govern-
ment within the boundaries of the 208
planning area  must:
  (1) Have In operation a  coordinated
waste treatment management system, or
  (2)  Show their intent, through for-
mally  adopted resolutions,  to  join to-
gether to develop and Implement a plan
which  will result in a coordinated waste
treatment management system  for the
area.
  (d) Affected units of local government
must have legal authority to enter into
agreements  for  coordinated wastewater
management In compliance with section
208 of the Act.
§ 126.11  Criteria  for designation of
     agencies responsible for planning.
  (a) The agency shall be a representa-
tive organization  whose  membership
shall Include but need not be limited to
elected officials of local governments, or
their deslgnees, having  jurisdiction in the
designated planning area. The  agency
shall establish procedures for plan adop-
tion and resolution of  major issues. The
agency shall have waste treatment plan-
ning jurisdiction In the entire designated
area. Existing, capable regional agencies
may be  designated consistent  with the
policies hi Title IV of the Intergovern-
mental Cooperation Act of 1968, as Im-
plemented by  Part IV of OMB Circular
A-95. A  single qualified agency may be
designated as  being responsible for plan-
ning in more than one  planning area.
  (b)  In the  selection of the  areawide
planning agency, the Oovernor(s) must
consider that  such agency, pursuant to
section 208 (b) (1) of the Act, shall have
the water quality management planning
process fully  underway no later  than 1
year after Its designation. Further, the
agency must have the capability to com-
plete,  and  shall complete,  the initial
water  quality  management plan no later
than 2 years  after  the planning process
is in operation or such  earlier date as the
State may require for incorporation into
State  plans required under section 303
(e) of the Act. The Governor or, in inter-
state cases, the Governors, shall In the
designation process, consider:
  (1)  The general and specific legal au-
thorities and  prohibitions applicable to
the agency with regard to water quality
management planning, including but not
limited to coordination with or participa-
tion in comprehensive planning, land use
planning, water sewer planning, coastal
zone planning,  and other related plan-
ning and development activities and con-
trols.
  (2)  The  relationship of the  agency
(both  formal  and Informal) with plan-
ning agencies of different levels of gov-
ernment including but not limited to
Federal, State,  interstate  and Federal-
State agencies  as  well as local govern-
ment agencies.
  (3) The relationship  of  the  agency
(both formal and  Informal)  with  man-
agement and regulatory agencies such as
those that possess zoning and subdivision
controls, and those that construct and
operate wastewater facilities.
  (4) Where an existing agency is des-
ignated:
  
-------
                                              RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   NOTE —Attention Is called to the fact that
 the Governor has three specific choice! of
 action. He may designate, remain silent, or
 may nondeslgnnte specific areas. If the Oov-
 ernor  remain* silent, the chief elected of-
 nclnls of  general purpose local  government
 IH the area  may make such designations
 If "they no chooae. Upon approval by  the
 AclmlnlKirulor, designation  by local elected
 olllrlnls Is binding  upon the Governor.

 8 126.15   Siibiiiixnioiifi <>r 20A |»lnnniiig
     nr«'HH mill  ii|«-ii<-i<-N rfNiiiiiitiblr  for
     planning.
   Wltliin 180  days after Issuance  of
 Uil.s Part the Oovernor shall notify  the
 Administrator  of  his  actions regarding
 designation of 208  planning  areas and
 agencies  responsible for the planning.
 This notification shall be in writing and
 shall include:
   (a)  Identification of each area within
 the State determined to be eligible by the
 Oovernor under } 126.10.
   (b)  A  list of all  areas among  those
 eligible which  the Oovernor wishes  to
 nondesignate at this time.
   (c)  A  list of all  areas among  those
 eligible which  the Governor wishes  to
 designate at this time. For  each  area
 designated  the  following  information
 shall be provided:
   (1)  An exact description of the bound-
 aries of each area Including a statement
 relating  to boundaries of  any area  to
 the boundaries of  the SMSA(s)  con-
 tained within or contiguous to the  area,
 or  in  those  areas not within a SMSA
 a  statement  relating the boundaries  of
 the area  to  the nearest  SMSA, and a
 statement Indicating:
   (i > Population of the area.
   (ii>  Nature of the concentration and
 distribution of  Industrial activity in the
 area,
   (ill i Degree to which it is anticipated
 that the  area could Improve  its ability
 to control water quality problems  were
 it designated as a  planning  208  area,
 and
   (iv>  Factors  responsible for designa-
 tion.
   <2> Identification    and   supporting
 analysis of each water quality segment
 included  in each area, as developed in
 accordance with Part 130 of this chapter.
  (3) For each area a  copy of the char-
 ter of  existing regional waste  treatment
 management   agencies  or   formally
 adopted resolutions  which  demonstrate
 that the general purpose units of  local
 government involved will join together
 in the planning process to  develop and
implement a plan which will result in
a coordinated waste  treatment manage-
 ment system for the area. The resolutions
shall  also state that  all  proposals for
 grants for construction  of a publicly
 owned treatment works will be consistent
 with the approved plan and will be made
only  by   the designated  management
 agency.
  (4) For each area the name, address,
 and official contact for the agency des-
 ignated to carry out the planning.
  (5) A statement on the factors  con-
 sidered In agency designation  as de-
 scribed in § 126.11.
   (6)  A summary of public participa-
 tion in accordance with the requirements
 set forth in 1126.30.
 § 126.16   Procedure for designation of
     208 planning arras and agencies re-
     sponsible for planning by the rJiief
     circled officials of  general purpose
     local government.
   (a)  In the case of any intrastate area,
 if the Oovenior of an affected area does
 not act to designate or nondesignate it
 as a 208 planning area, or in an Inter-
 state area If the Governors of an affected
 area do not act to designate It as a 208
 planning area, the chief elected officials
 of  general purpose  local  governments
 having jurisdiction In  the area, after
 meeting the  requirements for  public
 participation  as set forth  In 8126.30,
 may designate such planning  area, and
 a single representative agency responsi-
 ble for the planning, which shall be based
 upon the criteria set  forth  in 85126.10
 and 126.11.
   (b)  After  making such  designation,
 the chief local officials snail: (1)  Notify
 the  Oovernor(s)  of  the  State(s)  af-
 fected by their action,  and (2)  submit
 their designation to the Administrator
 in accordance with the requirements set
 forth  in i 126.15.  When the  Oovernor
 receives notification he  may submit his
 views  regarding  the designation  to the
 Administrator.
 §126.17  Review of submi6MOn«.
  (a)  The Administrator shall   review
 each submission of designated 208 plan-
 ning  areas and  agencies  to determine
 compliance with the  criteria  set forth
 in this Part.
  (b)  Upon completion of his review, the
 Administrator shall  publish notice in
 the FEDERAL  REGISTER and  shall  notify
 in writing  the appropriate  Oovernor(s)
 or local  officials making such designa-
 tions  of his approval  or disapproval of
 each designation. In the event that the
 Administrator  disapproves  any of the
 designations, he shall  specify his rea-
 sons with his notice of disapproval.
 § 126.18  Revisions.
  (a)  The appropriate  Governor(s)  or
 local officials 'where the original  desig-
 nation was not made by the Governor (s)
 may from time to time propose in writing
 a revision of the boundaries of any 208
 planning area previously approved. The
 Administrator shall approve or  disap-
 prove such proposed revision pursuant to
 i 126.17. The effective date of designation
 Is  the date  of  the   Administrator's
 approval.
  (b)  The Oovernor(s)  may also  desig-
 nate from time  to  time previously non-
 deslgnated planning areas and agencies.
In such cases the designation, submission,
 and approval shall follow  the require-
 ments set forth in this Part.
      Subpart C—State Planning in
          Nondesignated Areas
 § 126.20  Determination  of  planning
    agencies in nondesignated areas.
  (a)  The State shall act as the planning
 agency for all areas not designated under
II 126.12, 126.13, or 126.16. Where  the
Oovernor determines, pursuant to section
208ib> (4> of the Act.  that the require-
ments of section 208(b> (2)  (F through
K) should  be applied on  u statewide
basis, the State nmy apply the plnniiinu
process  established pursuant  to section
303 of the Act as the process for carrying
out  the requirements  of  the sections.
Funds which may be available under sec-
tion 106 of the Act may be  utilized to
conduct planning  pursuant to this  sec-
tion.
   (b) Assumption by  the State of the
planning responsibilities in these areas
does not foreclose the  establishment of
other planning processes at the substate
level.
     Subpart 0—Public Participation
§ 126.30  Public  participation  require-
     ments in designation of 208 planning
     areas and designation of agencies re-
     sponsible for planning.
   (a) The guidelines for  public partici-
pation as set forth  in  Part  105 of  this
chapter  implementing section 10 He) of
the Act shall be followed.
   (b) The  Oovernor(s)  shall  consult
with appropriate elected and other local
officials  prior to  designating planning
areas and agencies. The Oovernor (s), or
in the case of designation by chief elected
officials of general purpose local govern-
ment, those officials shall,  after adequate
public notice, hold one or  more public
hearings or meetings within the proposed
208 planning area for the  purpose of
gaining public advice on the designation
of the  planning area  and agency. All
units of  local government wishing to be
heard and the general public shall be in-
cluded.
   (c) Record of such public meetings or
hearings including notice of same shall
be kept and made available to the  Ad-
ministrator  upon request.  A summary of
comments and meeting notes shall be
submitted  to the  Administrator  with
each designation.
   Subpart E—Assistance to Designated
               Agencies
§ 126.40'  Determination of eligibility.
  Assistance under section 208 tf><"!>.
(g), and (h> of the Act shall be provided
only to  those agencies  designated under
5 126.12, 126.13, or 126.16.
 |PB Doc.73  19294 Piled  9-13 74,8 45 am|
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO.  176—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1973
-------
                 IV. 3

                 MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
                 WASHINGTON, D.C.

                 Volume 39 • Number 107

                 PART II
                 ENVIRONMENTAL
                    PROTECTION
                      AGENCY
                    WATER QUALITY
                    MANAGEMENT
                     BASIN PLANS

                    Policies and Procedures
No.107—Ptn	1
-------
19634
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
 Title 40—Protection of the Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION  AGENCY
PART 130—POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
  FOR  STATE CONTINUING  PLANNING
  PROCESS
  The purpose of this notice is to amend
40 CFR to add a new Part 130—Policies
and  Procedures for State Continuing
Planning  Process.  On  March 27,  1973,
notice was published in the FEDERAL REG-
ISTER (38 PR 8034) that the Environ-
mental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)  was
proposing, in the form of  interim reg-
ulations, policies and procedures for the
State Continuing Planning Process pur-
suant to section 303 (e)  of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amend-
ed; Pub. L. 92-500, 86  Stat. 816 (1972);
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Act).
  Section 303 (e) of the Act requires each
State to submit a  continuing planning
process  which is consistent with the Act.
Following the publication of the interim
regulations of March 27, 1973, and prior
to the publication  of these final regula-
tions, every State received EPA approval
of a State continuing  planning process.
These final regulations,  which describe
the necessary elements of a State's con-
tinuing  planning process, therefore pro-
vide policies  and procedures  for review,
revision, and approval  of a State's con-
tinuing  planning process in  accordance
with  §§ 130.52 and 130.54. In addition,
these regulations also provide a mecha-
nism for States to satisfy the Statewide
responsibilities of  section  208(b) (2) (F
thru  K)  and sections 303 (d)  (Critical
waters and total maximum daily loads);
305(b)  (State reports  on water quality
and  related information, including non-
point sources);  314(a)  (Clean  lakes);
516(b)  (Federal/State  estimate of pub-
licly owned treatment works construc-
tion needs); and they provide data for
104(a) (5)   (Federal  report  on  water
quality).
  Goals. The broad goals of the continu-
ing planning process are to provide  the
States with the water quality assessment
and program management  information
necessary  to  make centralized coordi-
nated water quality management deci-
sions; to encourage water quality ob-
jectives which take into account overall
State policies and programs,  including
those for land use and other related nat-
ural resources;  and to provide the stra-
tegic guidance for developing the annual
State program  submittal  under section
106 of the Act.
  Purpose  of the  State  process.  The
specific purpose of the State continuing
planning process Is to provide  a mecha-
nism for development of a State's pro-
gram submittal under section 106 of the
Act. This will  be  accomplished by de-
veloping an annual State strategy, which
will be based upon  basin plans  where
they  are completed and upon  other
available information where the plans
are not completed.
  The annual State strategy will assist
the State:
  In   directing    resources-planning,
monitoring, permitting, and financial as-
sistance  against water quality problems
on a priority basis.
  In establishing a coordinated schedule
of action.
  In reporting  on progress in achieving
program targets and scheduled mile-
stones.
  In providing the analysis required  to
revise  water quality standards and to in-
sure that applicable water quality stand-
ards are attained.
  In specifying the requirements for, and
scheduling the completion of, section 303
basin plans for all waters.
  In determining the impact of non-
point sources of pollution on State wa-
ter  quality and, where feasible, develop-
ing methods  and procedures to control
such sources on a statewide basis.
  In insuring public  participation in the
development  of the planning process and
of basin plans.
  The scope  and timing of a basin  plan
for a specific planning area will be  tail-
ored to  the  problems of the area. No
process should require individual basin
plans to be more detailed than is neces-
sary for sound  water quality  manage-
ment.
  Federal properties, facilities, and ac-
tivities are subject to Federal,  State, in-
terstate, and  local standards and effluent
limitations for control and abatement of
pollution. The  State's planning process
should include provision for Federal
sources. It is contemplated that Federal
agencies will provide information to the
States in accordance with procedures es-
tablished by the Administrator.
  Relationship of  the continuing  plan-
ning process and the section 106  State
program. State water  quality manage-
ment is formed through the annual sec-
tion 106 State program submission. The
program, consisting of a State strategy,
output  commitments,  reporting,  and
evaluation,  is a sequenced year-round
process, as  illustrated in the following
figure. The  cycle begins with the sub-
mission of the annual strategy, followed
by the annual section 106 program^ sub-
mission. A semi-annual evaluation and
reporting of accomplishments completes
the cycle.
  Basin plan contents. Companion regu-
lations  under Part 131 of this chapter,
describe requirements for the prepara-
tion  of  basin plans  pursuant to the
States's  continuing planning  process:
Part 131 regulations should be consult-
ed during the review and revision of the
continuing planning process under this
Part 130.
  Comments on Interim Regulations. A
total of 24  written comments were re-
ceived,  seven from States,  four from
public and private utilities, three from
planning organizations, four from pub-
lic  interest  groups and the remaining
from consultants, industry and other in-
terested individuals. A number of verbal
comments  also were  received. In addi-
tion, a task force  comprised of repre-
sentatives of eight State  Water Pollu-
tion  Control  Agencies  and  three EPA
Regional Offices reviewed the final draft
and made comments and suggested lan-
guage changes, as needed. The EPA has
•carefully considered all submitted com-
ments. The comments ranged from those
desiring more stringent requirements to
those who believed that these regulations
could be better handled under other sec-
tions of the Act. There was only one
comment opposed to the regulations,  by
an industrial group.
  The policy  decisions  have been  re-
viewed  with representative States. The
EPA revised the  regulations to reflect
most of the concerns raised, by  either
adopting the  comment or substantially
satisfying it through  editorial changes
and deletions from or  additions to the
regulations.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 39,  NO.  107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
                                              RULES  AND  1EGUUTIONS
                                                                          19635


MS Plawe

• X«MtMr ot MolUcmt
- XMkl* of (linlfluat

target abtttwcat 4«tM
* Toul Mm. lUily iMfe
• Control Target* M4
X*qnIr«Mnt*
* Kw-PoinC SouTCM
«4 Control





t* ' ' y



303 Planning Troc«»
"Stat* Str«t**v"
(reported la th« Sc*c«
prceraa subaittal buC
dmlop*d b4rt)
• geographical
•« .f CH TB* r  (P through
K)  of  the  Act.  (See  §§ 130.23  and
131.202).
   (6) Since land disposal of wastes may
have adverse effects on surface or ground
waters,  requirements respecting control
of  such  disposal have  been  restated,
under the authority of sections 208 and
303(e), to clarify the need to consider
the consequences to each category.
  (7)  Requirements regarding revisions
to the process have been clarified. An-
nual  reviews  and, as may be necessary
annual revisions  are now  required  as
part  of the Section 106 State program
submittal each year. The 1974 revisions
will be submitted within 90 days follow-
ing the publication of these regulations
and must address whatever changes are
necessary  to Insure  conformity with
5$ 130.11(e) and (f), 131.203, and 130.42.
(See  §130.54).
  (8)  Changes requested that were  not
incorporated  were to lengthen  beyond
five years the period of basin plan cov-
erage and to allow a period greater than
30 days for public participation. The in-
tent is that the basin plans will be more
specific if limited to a  five year  span;
and under the regulations this is only a
minimum requirement which may be ex-
panded to cover a  twenty  year  period
broken into five year increments. Fur-
ther,  it should be noted  that priorities
and expenditures within a five year per-
iod determine controls and water quality
improvements oyer a much longer period.
  The minimum period for public par-
ticipation was not extended beyond  30
days  since it was felt  that this  period
normally  would  be sufficient for pre-
senting one's  case  and  that additional
time,  where warranted, could be allowed
in individual cases.
  State continuing  planning processes
which have been submitted and approved
pursuant to the interim regulations pub-
lished March 27, 1973,  remain in force
until  revisions are  made to the process
pursuant to §  130.54. In  consideration of
the foregoing, Title 40  CFR  is hereby
amended to add a new Part 130—Policies
and   Procedures  for State  Continuing
Planning Process.

  Effective date: July 3, 1974.

  Dated: May 24, 1974.

                    RUSSELL TRAIN,
                      Administrator.
  Subpart A—Scope and Purpose; Definitions
Sec.
130.1  Scope and purpose
130.2  Definitions.
      Subpart B—General Requirements
130.10  Process coverage  and  coordination
        functions.
130 11   Classification of basin segments.
130.12  Designation of planning agencies
130.13  Public participation
130 14  Separability.
   Subpart C—Requirements for Basin Plans
130.20   Content and scope of basin plans.
130.21   Establishment of planning areas.
130.22   Water quality standards:  antidegra-
        dation.
130.23   Non-point sources  of pollutants
130 24  Monitoring and surveillance.
130.25  Intergovernmental  cooperation.
130.26  Adoption,  certification, and submit-
        tal of basin plans.
  Subpart D—Requirements for Annual State
                Strategy
130.40  State strategy; contents.
130.41   Segment priority ranking.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  39, NO.  107—MONDAY,  JUNE 3,  1974
-------
19636
     RULES  AND REGULATIONS
Sec.
130.42  Agreement on level  of  detail and
         timing of basin plan preparation
130.43  State municipal discharge Inventory:
         priority ranking.
130.44  State Industrial discharge Inventory.
   Subpart E — Submission and Approval of
         Planning Process;  Reports
130.50  Submission of process.
130.51  Contents of process submit tal.
130.52  Review and approval or  disapproval
         of process.
130.53  Prohibition of approval  of certain
         planning processes; withdrawal of
         process approval.
130.54  Review and revisions of process.
130.55  Reports; State program submit tal.
  Subpart F — Relationship of Process to Permit
130.60  Relationship of continuing planning
         process  to  State participation in
         National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
         ination  System
  AUTHORITY: Sees. 106, 208(b)(2), 303(d),
3O3(e), 305(b), 314, 501, 518(b) of the Fed-
eral  Water   Pollution  Control  Act,  as
amended; Pub. L.  92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (1972) ;
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
     Subpart A — Scope and  Purpose;
              Definitions
§ 130.1  Scope and purpose.
   (a)  This  part establishes  regulations
specifying procedural and other require-
ments for the submission  and approval
of State continuing planning processes
pursuant to section 303 (e) of the Fed-
eral  Water  Pollution Control  Act,  as
imended; Pub.  L.  92-500, 86 Stat.  816
(1972);  (33 U.S.C.  1251 et seq.).
   (b)  The broad goals of the continuing
planning process are: to  provide  the
States with  the water quality assessment
and  program management information
necessary to make  centralized coordi-
nated  water quality management deci-
sions;  to encourage water quality objec-
tives which take into account  overall
State  policies and programs, including
those  for land  use and other related
natural  resources;  and  to provide  the
strategic guidance for developing the an-
nual State program submittal under sec-
tion 106 of the Act.
   (c)  The  State  continuing planning
process is  directed  toward the attain-
ment of water quality standards estab-
lished  under section 303 of the Act which
are  designed to achieve the goals set
forth in the Act. -The continuing plan-
ning process provides a mechanism for
developing an annual State strategy for
directing resources;  establishing priori-
ties; scheduling actions; and reporting
progress toward the achievement of pro-
gram objectives.
   (d)  The  "continuing planning proc-
ess"  is the  process by which the State
develops:
   (1)  The annual State strategy,  which
sets  the State's major  objectives and
priorities for preventing and controlling
pollution oyer a  one to three year period.
   (2)  Individual basin plans, which es-
tablish specific programs and targets for
preventing and  controlling water pollu-
tion in individual basins and establish
policies which guide decision making over
a five to ten year span of time.
  (3) The annual program plan (section
106), which establishes the results  ex-
pected and identifies the resources com-
mitted for the State program each year.
  (e) This part describes:
  (1) The general requirements for the
planning  process (Subpart  B  of  this
part).
  (2) The  planning   process  require-
ments for the preparation of basin plans
(Subpart C of this part).
  (3) The preparation of the annual
State strategy (Subpart D of this part).
  (4) The requirements for  submission
and  approval  of the  planning process
(Subpart E of this part).
  (5) The relationship of the process to
the permit program (Subpart P of this
part).
§ 130.2  Definitions.
  As used in this part,  the following
terms shall have the meanings set forth
below.
  (a) The term  "Act" means the Fed-
eral   Water Pollution Control  Act,  as
amended;  Pub.  L.  92-500, 86 Stat.  816
(1972); (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
  (b) The term "EPA" means the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
  (c) The term "Administrator" means
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
  (d) The term  "Regional Administra-
tor"   means the  appropriate EPA Re-
gional Administrator.
  (e) The terms "continuing  planning
process," "planning process," and "proc-
ess"  mean the continuing planning proc-
ess required by section 303 (e) of the Act
including any revision thereto.
  (f) The term "basin plan' means the
water quality management plan for each
hydrologic basin or other approved basin
unit within a  State. Such plans form a
basis for implementing applicable effluent
limitations and water quality standards,
and  consist of such elements as are nec-
essary for sound planning and program
management in the basin covered by the
plan. Requirements for the preparation
of basin plans are described in Part 131
of this chapter.
  (g) The  term  "effluent  limitation"
means any restriction established by a
State or the Administrator on quantities,
rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other  constitu-
ents  which are  discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters
of the  contiguous  zone,  or  the ocean,
but  does not include  schedules  of com-
pliance.
  (h)  The  term "schedule  of  compli-
ance" means  remedial measures  to be
accomplished  and a sequence of actions
or operations leading to compliance with
applicable  effluent  limitations,  water
quality standards  and  other  require-
ments of State and Federal law. Sched-
ule  of  compliance includes  those  se-
quenced actions or  operations contained
in a  National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System permit which are legally
binding on the discharger; whereas, the
term "target  abatement  dates" means
a sequence of actions or control meas-
ures  which  have  not  been  formally
adopted through the permit process and
therefore are not legally binding on the
discharger  until they are  adopted in a
permit.
  (i)   The  term  "municipal  needs"
means the  total capital funding required
for construction of publicly owned treat-
ment works, as denned in section 212
(2) (A) and (B) of the Act, required to
meet national  water quality objectives
of sections 301 and 302 of the Act.
  (j) The   term  "National   Pollutant
Discharge  Elimination  System" means
the national permitting system author-
ized under  section 402 of the Act, includ-
ing any State  or interstate permit pro-
gram which has been approved by the
Administrator  pursuant to section 402
of the Act.
  (k)  The term "phasing of planning"
means the  State schedule approved by
the  Regional   Administrator  for  the
preparation of  basin plans.
  (1)  The term "basin" means  the
streams, rivers,  tributaries,  and  lakes
and the total  land and  surface water
area contained within one of the major
or minor basins defined by EPA, or any
other basin unit as  agreed upon by the
State (s)  and the Regional Administra-
tor. Unless otherwise specified,  "basin"
shall refer only to those portions within
the borders of a single State.
  (m) The  term "segment"  means a
portion of  a basin, the surface  waters
of which have  common hydrologic char-
acteristics   (or  flow   regulation  pat-
terns) ; common natural physical, chem-
ical, and biological processes;  and com-
mon reactions  to external stresses, such
as  the discharge  of  pollutants. (See
§ 130.11 (d)).
   (n)  The term "significant  discharge"
means any point source  discharge  for
which timely management action must
be  taken  in order  to  meet  the water
quality objectives for the basin  within
the period  of  the operative basin plan.
The significant nature  of the discharge
is to be determined by  the  State, but
must include,  at a  minimum, any dis-
charge which  is causing  or  will  cause
serious or critical water quality problems
relative to the segment  to which it dis-
charges.
   (o)  The definitions of the terms con-
tained in section 502 of  the Act shall be
applicable  to such terms as used in this
part   unless   the   context   otherwise
requires.

    Subpart B—General  Requirements
§ 130.10   Process coverage and coordina-
     tion  function.
   (a)  The process shall provide for the
preparation of  basin plans for all waters
within the State, as provided in Subpart
C of this part.
  (b) The process shall establish phas-
ing of plans to be accomplished, as pro-
vided in Subpart D of this part.
   (c)  The  process  shall  provide the
method by which  the  State  shall co-
ordinate all water quality planning, pro-
gramming and management.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        19637
   (d)  The  process  shall provide  the
method by which the State shall coordi-
nate   its  water  quality  management
planning with related State and  local
comprehensive,  functional, and project
planning activities,  Including  land use
and other  natural  resources  planning
activities.
   (e)  The  process  shall provide  the
method by which the State shall coordi-
nate its water quality management plan-
ning with that of Its neighboring States.
§ 130.11  Classification  of  basin  seg-
     ments.
   (a) The requirements of this part and
Part 131 of this chapter vary according
to the classification of each particular
basin segment, such that the time and
resources to be  extended in developing
the basin plan for a particular segment,
as well as the substantive content of the
basin plan, will be commensurate  with
the severity of the water pollution prob-
lem, as described in Subpart B of  Part
131 of this chapter.
  (b) The classification of segments also
shall be used in establishing State prior-
ities in accordance with  Subpart D of
this part.
  (c) The classification of segments shall
be based upon measured Instream water
quality, where available.
  (d) Each basin segment shall be classi-
fied as follows:
  (1) Water quality. Any segment where
it is known that water quality does not
meet applicable  water quality standards
and/or is not expected to meet applicable
water  quality standards even after the
application of the effluent limitations re-
quired by sections  301
-------
19638
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (2) That when a basin plan is under
development  In another  State for an
area affecting or affected by waters of
the State, the State will cooperate with
such  other State  in  the analyses  and
planning pertinent to such area.
  (d) The use of interstate agencies in
all  phases of interstate cooperation in
water quality management  planning is
encouraged.
  (e) The process shall describe  the
mechanism for State  approval of water
quality management basin plans involv-
ing interstate waters.
§ 130.26  Adoption,  certification   and
    submittal of basin plans.
  The process shall provide that after
appropriate public hearings  the basin
plans will be adopted,  certified, and sub-
mitted to the appropriate Regional Ad-
ministrator,  as specified in  Part  131,
Subpart E, of this chapter.
  Subpart D—Requirements for Annual
            State Strategy
§ 130.40  State strategy; contents.
  (a) The planning process shall  pro-
vide for the  preparation  of an annual
State strategy. The annual  State strat-
egy shall be submitted as  part of  the
section 106 State program submittal, as
required  pursuant  to   § 130.55.   The
Governor or his designee(s) shall be pro-
vided an opportunity to be involved in
the  identification  and  resolution  of
significant issues in the formulation of
the State strategy.
  (b) The State strategy snail contain:
  (1) A  statewide assessment of water
quality problems and the causes of these
problems.
  (2)  A  listing  of  the  geographical
priorities of  these  problems.
  (3) A description of the State's  ap-
proach to solving its water quality prob-
lems identified in subparagraph (1)  of
this paragraph, including a discussion of
the extent to which non-point sources of
pollution will  be addressed by the State
program.
  (4) A listing of the  priorities  and
scheduling  of  permits,   construction
grants, basin plans, areawide plans and
other appropriate  program  actions  to
carry out subparagraph  (3)  of  this
paragraph.
  (5) A description of the level of detail
and the  schedule for preparation  of
basin plans proposed  for  each basin 01
portion thereof.
  (6) A description of the  manner in
which the information, analyses,  esti-
mates, or recommendations required to
satisfy the provisions of section 305 (b)
of the Act will be obtained together with
all such information, analyses, estimates
or recommendations as may be available
at the time of submission of the State
strategy unless the State chooses to  sub-
mit the  305(b)  report  separately from
the State, strategy.
  (c) The State  strategy  should  be
based upon  other  information derived
from completed basin plans, when avail-
able, and from other available informa-
tion in areas where basin plans are not
completed.
§ 130.41  .Segment priority ranking.
  (a) Based on  the annual  statewide
assessment  of the water quality prob-
lems and causes  of these problems de-
veloped pursuant to ! 130.40 (a) (1), the
State shall rank each segment in priority
order, taking into account:
  (1) Severity of  pollution  problems.
  (2) Population affected.
  (3) Need  for  preservation  of   high
quality waters.
  (4) National priorities as determined
by the Administrator.
  (5) Additional   factors identified  by
the State in its priority system.
  (b) Segments of the same basin  need
not  be  listed  together;  however,  their
ranking  in  the State list shall be  con-
sistent with their ranking in any ap-
proved basin plan.
  (c) The State segment priority rank-
ing generally  shall govern the develop-
ment of basin  plans,  construction  of
publicly  owned  treatment works,  issu-
ance of permits, and  other program ac-
tivities.
               § 130.43  State municipal discharge in-
                    ventory; priority ranking.
                 (a) Each State  shall  establish and
               maintain a State Municipal Discharge
               Inventory. The inventory shall set forth
               a Statewide ranking of significant mu-
               nicipal  dischargers.  The inventory shall
               be  used in establishing  priorities and
               output  estimates for municipal facilities
               construction and in other program ac-
               tions to be developed as part of the State
               program submittal  required under sec-
               tion 106 of the Act. The inventory shall
               become  the  list of municipalities re-
               quired in § 35.915(b) of this chapter for
               award of construction grants.
                  (b) The State Municipal Discharge In-
               ventory shall be revised  and submitted
               at  least once each year,  as required
               pursuant to  § 130.55.
                  (c) The State shall rank  significant
               municipal  dischargers consistent with
               the segment priority rankings contained
               in  § 130.41.

               § 130.44   Stale  industrial discharge  in-
                    ventory.
§ 130.42  Agreement on level  of detail
     and timing of basin plan prepara-
     tion.
  (a) The level of detail and timing of
basin plan preparation proposed for each
basin, or portion thereof, shall  be  de-
termined by  agreement  between  the
State and the appropriate Regional Ad-
ministrator. All basin plans must be sub-
mitted  by July  1, 1975;  however,  the
appropriate Regional Administrator may
extend the time for submission by agree-
ment with the State. The State will pro-
vide a proposed schedule for basin plan
preparation and proposed level of detail
of basin planning as part of the  annual
State strategy. Approval of the  section
106 State program, including the  annual
State strategy, will serve as approval of
the schedule and level of detail of basin
planning.
  (b) The schedule shall provide a se-
quence for phasing of planning to assure
the orderly implementation of the plan-
ning  process,  consistent with existing
planning efforts and  needs and the ex-
panding capabilities for  planning in the
State. Such  schedule shall determine the
State's priorities  for the development of
basin plans  pursuant to the process dur-
ing the period covered by the schedule.
  (c) The schedule of basin plans shall
be  determined following . consideration
of:
  (1) The ranking of segments  pursu-
ant to § 130.41 and the number of Water
Quality segments in the basin; and
  (2) Any other factors  the State may
deem  appropriate  in  developing  and
scheduling plans for  sound water qual-
ity management.
  (d) Where agreement on level of de-
tail and timing of basin planning  has
not previously been specified for Fiscal
Year  1975,  the  State shall submit  the
proposed  level  of detail  and timing of
basin planning together  with  planning
process revisions as specified in § 130.54.
                  Each State shall establish and main-
                tain a State Industrial Discharge Inven-
level of detail   tory. The inventory should reflect the
                relative  importance  of  significant  dis-
                chargers and shall be used for guidance
                in establishing the annual State strategy.
                Problem  identification  and   segment
                ranking should be used in developing the
                State Industrial Discharge Inventory.
                 Subpart E—Submission and Approval of
                      Planning Process;  Reports
                § 130.50  Submission of process.
                  (a)  The Governor of each State shall
                submit to the Regional Administrator the
                continuing planning process.
                  (b)  Submission shall be accomplished
                by delivering to the Regional Adminis-
                trator five copies of  the planning process
                and a letter from the Governor notifying
                him of such action.

                § 130.51  Contents  of process submittal.
                  (a)  The submittal shall contain, at a
                minimum, the following:
                  (1) A map of the State showing basins
                and segments and a  map showing recom-
                mended areas  delineated for facilities
                planning.
                  (2)  A listing of the classifications of
                segments.
                  (3)  A description of the  planning
                method employed  to  formulate  basin
                plans.
                  (4)  A listing of the planning agency
                or  agencies that will perform the  plan-
                ning under this part and Part 131 of this
                chapter.
                  (5)  A description of public participa-
                tion in the development  of the process,
                including participation of local govern-
                ments.
                  (6) A statement that legal authorities
                required  to  prepare  and adopt  basin
                plans as required  by the planning  proc-
                ess exist or will be obtained.
                  (7)  A description of reports,  includ-
                ing the State strategy, that will be sub-
                mitted under section 106 of the Act.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39,  NO.  107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        19639
 § 130.52   Review and  approval  or dis-
     approval of process.
   The Regional Administrator shall ap-
 prove or disapprove the planning process
 submitted pursuant to § 130.50 within 30
 days after the date of submission, as
 follows:
   (a)   If  the  Regional  Administrator
 determines that the  planning  process
 conforms with the requirements of the
 Act and this Part 130, he shall so notify
 the Governor by letter.
   (b)   If  the Regional  Administrator
 determines that the process fails  to con-
 form with the requirements of the Act
 and this Part 130, he shall so notify the
 Governor by letter and shall state:
   (1) The specific revisions necessary to
 obtain approval of the process.
   (2) The time period for resubmission
 of the revised process or portions thereof.

 § 130.53   Prohibition of approval of cer-
     tain planning processes; withdrawal
     of process approval.
  The Regional Administrator shall not
 approve any continuing planning process
which will  not result in  timely basin
 plans for all navigable waters within the
State that conform with the applicable
requirements of sections 303(e), 3l4(a),
208(b) (2) (F-K), and 303(d) of the Act
 and Part 131 of this chapter, relating to
such basin plans. Substantial failure of
any basin plan or plans prepared pursu-
ant to the process to conform with such
applicable  requirements  may indicate
that the planning process by which such
basin plan or plans were developed was
deficient and should be revised. Failure
 to accomplish necessary revisions of the
planning  process  may  result  in  with-
drawal  of approval of part or all of the
process.

 § 130.54  Review and revisions of proc-
     ess.
  (a) The State shall review annually its
 continuing planning process  and shall
revise the process as  may be necessary
to assure  the development and mainte-
nance  of  a State  strategy and current
basin plans which will accomplish na-
tional  water quality objectives in  con-
formity with the requirements of the Act.
  (b) The State  shall submit annual
planning  process revisions  to the Re-
gional Administrator as part of the State
Program Plan submittal under section
106 of the Act.
  (c) In addition to any other necessary
revisions identified by  the State  or the
Regional Administrator, the State shall
submit, within 90 days after publication
of these regulations, whatever revisions
to its planning process are necessary to
insure conformity with §§ 130.11(e) and
 ISO.lKf) and § 131.203 of this chapter.
  (d) Revisions of the process shall be
 submitted in accordance with § 130.50.
  (e) Review and  approval  or  disap-
 provaLof revisions of the process shall be
 carried out in accordance with § 130.52.
 § 130.55  Reports; Stale  program  sub-
     mittal.
  The annual  State strategy Including
 the State problem assessment and priori-
 ties described in 1130.41, the State/EPA
 agreement on level of detail and timing
 of basin plan preparation as described in
 S 130.42, the State Municipal Discharge
 Inventory described in.! 130.43, and the
 State Industrial Discharge Inventory de-
 scribed in 9 130.44, as well  as any other
 program  progress report(s) which may
 be  required,  shall be submitted as part
 of  the  State program submittal under
 section 106 of the Act.
  Subpart F—Relationship of Process To
            Permit Program
 § 130.60  Relationship  of  continuing
     planning process to State participa-
     tion in National Pollutant Discharge
     Elimination  System.
  (a) State participation in the National
 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
 other than the interim participation pro-
 vided in section 402(a) (5) of the Act,
 shall not be approved for any State which
 does not  have an  approved continuing
 planning process.
  (b) Approval of State participation in
 the  National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
 ination System may be withdrawn from
 any State if  approval of the continuing
 planning  process is withdrawn  for any
 reason, including withdrawal of process
 approval based on gross failure to comply
 with the schedule for basin plan prepara-
tion (1130.42) or on failure of basin plans
 to conform with the planning process re-
 quirements (I 130.52).
  [FB Doc.74-12559 Piled 5-31-74;8:45 am]
  PART  131—PREPARATION OF WATER
  QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASIN PLANS
  The purpose of this part is to amend
40 CFR to add a new Part 131—Prepara-
tion of Water Quality Management Basin
Plans. On May 23, 1973, notice was pub-
lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR
13567)  that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency was proposing policies and
procedures designed to assist States in
the preparation of water quality man-
agement basin plans pursuant to section
303 (e)  of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended; Pub. L. 92-500,
86 Stat. 816  (1972);  (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.)  (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
  Section 303(e) of the Act requires each
State  to  have  a continuing planning
process which is consistent with  the Act.
Basin plans under this part will be pre-
pared in  accordance with the State's
continuing planning  process  submitted
and approved pursuant to  Part 130 of
this chapter.
  The regulations describe the require-
ments for preparation of basin plans and
the  procedures  governing  basin  plan
adoption, submission, revision, and EPA
approval. The relationship of basin plans
with EPA grants and the national permit
system also is described. Provision is in-
cluded  for coordination between  basin
plans and  any  discharge permit  for  a
source located in 'a planning area.
  The regulations are designed to assure
that  basin plans prepared pursuant to
this part will be appropriate  for  water
quality management both in areas hav-
 ing complex water quality problems and
 in less complicated situations.
   Written comments on  the proposed
 regulations  were invited  and  received
 from Interested parties. A number of
 verbal comments also were received. The
 Environmental  Protection  Agency has
 carefully considered  all submitted com-
 ments. All written comments are on file
 with the Agency. Certain of these com-
 ments have been adopted or substan-
 tially satisfied by editorial changes and
 deletions from or additions to the regu-
 lations.   These   and  other  principal
 changes are discussed below  and in the
 preamble to Part 130 of this chapter.
   (a) Since  8 150.1-2  of this  chapter
 will be superseded by Part 35, Subpart E
 of this chapter, the requirement that ba-
 sin plans be coordinated with 8 150.1-2
 plans, has been deleted. Also, the require-
 ment that basin  plans be coordinated
 with water quality standards  implemen-
 tation plans  has been.deleted.
   (b)  Each  basin plan must  now be
 based on "best available" monitoring and
 surveillance data. (See  1131.400).
   (c) Requirements regarding revisions
 to basin  plans have been clarified. Each
 basin plan must be  revised within five
 years of  the  last approval date; specific
 considerations in the revision process are
 also listed. (See § 131.505).
  Section 131.507 clarifies } 35.925-2 to
 indicate that disapproval by the Regional
 Administrator of a basin plan,  or rele-
 vant portion thereof,  for the area where
 a project is to be located may constitute
 grounds  for  not approving a grant for
 such  project. This revision will be in-
 cluded in an  amendment to 40 CFR Part
 35, Subpart E. § 35.925-2.
  Those   basin  plans  prepared  under
 State  continuing  planning  processes
 which have been submitted and approved
 pursuant to the interim regulations pub-
 lished May 23,1973, remain in force until
 revisions  are made to  the basin plans
 pursuant to  § 131.505 of this part. In
 consideration of the  foregoing,  Title 40
 CFR  is  hereby amended to add a new
 Part 131—Preparation of Water Quality
 Management Basin Plans.
  Effective date: July 3,1974.
  Dated:  May 24, 1974.
                 RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
                      Administrator.
   Subpart A—Scope and Purpose: Definitions
 Sec.
 131.100 Scope and purpose.
 131.101 Definitions.
   Subpart B—Preparation for Basin Planning
 131.200 General.
 131.201 Basin plan elements.
 131.202 Scope and timing of basin plan sub-
          mission.
 131.203 Boundaries of planning area.
    Subpart C—Basin Plan Methodology and
                Contents
 131.300 General.
 131.301 Inventory of sources; analysis of
          significant discharges;  segment
         priority ranking.
131.302 Schedules of compliance; coordina-
         tion with permits.
131.303 Assessment of  municipal  needs.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY,  JUNE  3, 1974
-------
19640
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
Sec.
131.304  Determination of  total maximum
          dally loads.
131.305  Individual point source load  allo-
          cations; Impact on water quality.
131.306  Individual non-point source assess-
          ment; Impact on water quality.
131.307  Establishment of  residual  wastes
          control process.
131.308  Revisions  to  water quality stand-
          ards.
131.309  Identification  of  relationship  to
          other plans.
131.310  Coordination  of certain  planning
          elements and terms of permits.

    Subpart D—Monitoring and Surveillance
131.400  Relationship of monitoring and sur-
          veillance program to basin plans.
131.401  Coverage of monitoring and surveil-
          lance program.
131.402  Use of monitoring surveys for basin
          plan development.
131.403  Frequency of monitoring surveys.
131.404  Output of monitoring surveys.
131.405  Water quality data from fixed sta-
          tions; Input to EPA information
          system.

Subpart  E—Completion and  Review of  Basin
     Plans: Relation to Permits and Grants
131.500  Basin plan adoption.
131.501  Certifications.
131.502  Public participation.
131.503  Submission of basin plans.
131.504  Review and approval or disapproval
          of basin plans.
131.505  Revision of basin plans.
131.506  Prohibition of approval of  certain
          basin plans; withdrawal of proc-
          ess approval.
        Prohibition of certain construction
          grants.
        Discharge permit  terms and  con-
          ditions.
        Separability.
131.507

131.508

131.509
  AUTHORITY: Sec.  303(e)  of  the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended;
Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (1972);  (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.)  (hereinafter referred to as the
Act).

    Subpart  A—Scope and Purpose:
               Definitions

§ 131.100   Scope and purpose.

  (a) This  part  establises  regulations
specifying procedural and other require-
ments for the preparation of basin  plans
pursuant to a State continuing planning
process approved in accordance with sec-
tion 303(e)  of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended; Pub. L.
92-500,  86 Stat.  816  (1972);  (33 U.S.C.
1251  et  seq.),  and  Part  130  of  this
chapter.
  (b) A basin plan  is  a management
document  which identifies  the water
quality  problems  of a particular  basin
and sets forth an effective remedial pro-
gram to alleviate those  problems. The
basin plan is neither a broad water and
related land resources plan nor a basin-
wide facilities plan. The value of a basin
plan lies in  its utility in making  water
quality  management  decisions  on a
basinwlde scale. To achieve this objective,
the detail  of the basin plan should be
designed to provide the necessary analy-
sis  for  basin  management  decisions.
Moreover, there must be a flexible revi-
sion mechanism to reflect changing con-
ditions In the basin. A basin plan should
be a dynamic.management tool, rather
than a  rigid,  static  compilation of data
and material.
  (c) A basin  plan  will provide  for
orderly  water quality management  by:
  (1) Identifying  problems.  Assessing
existing water quality, applicable water
quality  standards, point  sources of pol-
lution,  and,   if appropriate, non-point
sources  of pollution.
  (2) 'Assessing needs  and  priorities.
Assessing water quality and abatement
needs so as to Identify any deficiencies
in the Statewide priorities developed in
accordance with §§ 130.41 through 130.44
of this chapter.
  (3) Scheduling actions. Setting forth
compliance  schedules  where  permits
have  been Issued or  target abatement
dates where permits have not been issued
and indicating necessary State and local
activities.
  (4) Coordinating  planning. Identify-
ing needs and priorities  for section 201
facility  plans and section 208 areawide
plans within the basin and reflecting the
results of those activities.
§ 131.101  Definitions.
  The definitions set forth hi 5 130.2 of
this chapter shall apply to this part.
    Subpart B—Preparation for Basin
                Planning
§ 131.200  General.
  (a) Each basin plan under this  part
shall be prepared pursuant to the State
planning process submitted and approved
in accordance  with Part  130  of  this
chapter.
§ 131.201  Basin plan elements.
  (a) Basin   planning   elements  vary
with the water quality problems and the
water quality decisions to be made in a
particular  basin. Generally, basin plan-
ning elements are  consonant with  the
segment classifications indicated in the
following table.
  (b) The waters  within the planning
basin shall be classified as Water Quality
segments and/or Effluent Limitation seg-
ments as described in Part 130, Subpart B
of this chapter.
  (c) The segment  analyses as outlined
in this  Part  131, shall be  used to re-
classify, as   appropriate,  the  current
State classification of segments pursuant
to § 130.11 of  this chapter.
  (d) The level of detail and the sched-
ule of  basin  plan  preparation will  de-
pend on the water quality problems  and
the water quality decisions to be made
and  shall  be  determined by the State/
EPA  agreement  in  accordance  with
§ 130.42 of this chapter.
                                                                                           BASIN PLANNING ELEMENTS
1
»
li Inventory and ranking o(
significant dischargers
d lai ami
2. Schedule of compliance or
target dates (i 131.302) 	
8; Assessment of municipal
needs (} 131.303) 	
4. Determination of total max-
imum daily loads (8 131.-
304) 	
S. Established or targeted load
allocations and effluent
limitations (5 131.305) 	
0. Assessment of non-point
sources of pollution (S 131 j-
306) 	 	
7. Residual waste controls
(§131.307) 	 	
8. Recommended water qual-
ity standards revisions
(j 131.308) 	 	
9. Planning relationships
(5 131.309) _
10. Appropriate monitoring
and surveillance programs
(Part 131 Subpart D) 	
11; Interstate/Intergovernmen-
tal cooperation (J 180.25) _
Water
uuality
egmeuts
x
X
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
X
Effluent
limitation
segments
x
X
X

x
x
x
X
X
§ 131.202   Scope and timing  of basin
     plan submissions.
  (a) All basin plans must be submitted
by July  1, 1975,  unless an extension of
time has been granted by  the  Regional
Administrator pursuant  to  S 130.42 of
this chapter, and shall concentrate on:
  (1) Point source  management provi-
sions, including data assembly and  sig-
nificant discharge inventories;
  (2) Waste  load  analysis  in  Water
Quality segments, based on  existing or
readily obtainable data;
  (3) Schedules of compliance  or target
abatement dates;
  (4) Assessment of municipal  needs for
Federal  construction grant  assistance;
and
  (5) A recognition of non-point sources,
to the extent feasible, to establish  dis-
charge load allocations for point source
discharges.
  (b) Revisions to basin plans after July
1, 1975, shall reconsider, where substan-
tive  changes have occurred, current ac-
tions with  respect  to  the most  recent
data or analysis and shall concentrate, if
appropriate, on  the identification  and
evaluation of methods  and  procedures
(including  land  use requirements)  to
control, to the extent feasible, non-point
sources of pollution.
§ 131.203   Boundaries of planning area.
  (a) Each basin planning area shall be
the area within the  basin  boundary.
  (b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)  of this section, the basin boundaries
shall be those identified as minor basins
in the EPA water  quality information
system.
  (c) The State  planning process  may
provide for the establishment of planning
boundaries  differing from  those  identl-
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO.  107—MONDAY,  JUNE 3, 1974
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        19641
fled in the EPA basin system. Any such
differing boundaries shall be  submitted
to the Regional Administrator for ap-
proval.
  (d) Each basin plan shall  contain  a
delineation  of the  boundaries of the
basin on a map  of appropriate scale.
Such map or maps shall include, but are
not limited to:
  (1) An identification of the location of
each significant discharger by river mile
and/or shore location for bays, lakes and
estuaries.
  (2) An identification of the location of
all monitoring stations (Federal-State-
Local) by river mile and/or grid location.
  NOTE:  Such a map  may omit discharger
and  monitoring station  locations II  such
locations  are available In the  EPA water
quality Information system and If the basin
plan   Includes  the  listing  described  In
§ 131.301(b) and a  list of monitoring sta-
tions and their  locations.
Subpart C—Basin  Plan Methodology and
               Contents
§ 131.300  General.
  This  subpart describes  the method-
ology to  be used in formulating the ap-
propriate elements  of  basin plans  as
specified in Subpart B of this part.
§ 131.301  Inventory of sources; analy-
     sis of significant discharges; segment
     priority ranking.
  (a) Each basin  plan shall include an
inventory of municipal  and  industrial
sources   and a  ranking  of  municipal
sources which  shall be used by the State
in the development of the State strategy,
described in Part 130, Subpart D  of this
chapter.
  (b) Each basin  plan shall include an
analysis of each significant discharger of
pollutants, set forth the location of each
source, and describe, by parameter, its
waste  discharge  characteristics.  The
analysis  should include  data from the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion  System. A summary of the informa-
tion  should be included in the basin plan.
   Each basin plan shall include  a
ranking  of the basin segments in order
of abatement  priority for  the purpose
of identifying deficiencies in  the State-
wide  priorities  developed  in §§ 130.41
through  130.44 of  this chapter.
§ 131.302  Schedules of compliance; co-
     ordination with permits.
  (a)  Each  basin  plan  shall include
schedules of compliance or target dates
of abatement for significant dischargers
identified in § 131.301.
  (b) (1)  Each schedule  of compliance
or target date  of abatement shall include
milestone dates, as follows:
  
-------
19642
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  (b) Each basin plan shall identify and
evaluate water quality problems in Water
Quality segments  caused by non-point
source discharges  including, at a mini-
mum, a description of the type of prob-
lem,  an  Identification  of  the  waters
affected, including an evaluation of  the
effects,  and  an identification  of non-
point sources contributing to the prob-
lem.
  (c) Each basin plan shall identify and
evaluate  alternative  procedures  and
methods  (including land  use require-
ments)  to control, to the extent feasible,
non-point sources contributing to water
quality  problems in Water Quality seg-
ments.  The evaluation should consider
the  technical,  legal,  institutional,  eco-
nomic and environmental impact and
feasibility of such procedures and meth-
ods. The most feasible alternative should
be described  In the basin plan. Data ob-
tained from  the basin  plan monitoring
program established pursuant to Subpart
D of this part shall be employed in mak-
ing the identifications and analyses re-
quired by this section.
§ 131.307  Establishment  of  residual
     wastes control process.
  Each basin plan shall identify neces-
sary controls to be established over the
disposition of residual wastes from mu-
nicipal,  industrial, or  other  water  or
waste water treatment processing, when-
ever  the  processing  or  disposal  occurs
within  the basin, and shall establish a
process to control the disposal of pollut-
ants on land or in subsurface excava-
tions within the  basin wherever such
disposal causes or may cause violation of
water  quality  standards  or  wherever
such disposal materially affects  ground
water quality.
§ 131.308  Revisions  to water  quality
     standards.
   fa) Each basin plan shall set forth the
water quality standards and/or  recom-
mendations for revision of water quality
standards, including the antidegradation
statement, applicable to each body of
water or segment in the basin, or shall
include the legal citation of such stand-
ards.
    Recommendations for revisions of
standards shall consider the objectives
of the Act, as specified  In section 101 (a)
of the Act, and the social, economic and
technical,  Including natural, considera-
tions for achieving these objectives..
   'c)  Each  basin plan  shall be  revised
as necessary to  reflect  revisions of the
applicable water quality standards.
§ 131.309   Identification of relationship
     to other plans.
   (a) Each basin plan shall evaluate the
need for and  recommend the planning
area for  future  section  201  facilities
plans or section 208 areawide wastewater
management plans involving  all or any
part of the basin, and establish the strat-
egy  for  the planning  area,  including
waste load allocations and target abate-
 ment dates for significant dischargers
 included.
  (b) Each basin plan shall Identify the
relationship, Indicate the current status,
and  describe  the extent of complemen-
tary Influence of any other water quality
or other applicable  resource  plan  pre-
pared  or under preparation which In-
volves  all or  any part of the  basin, In-
cluding:
  (1) Each designated areawide waste
treatment management plan under sec-
tion 208 of the Act;
  (2) Each facility plan for a proposed
project for the construction of  treatment
works  under  section 201 of the Act;
  (3) Each Level B basin plan pursuant
to section 209 of the Act or Pub. L. 89-90;
and
  (4)  Other applicable  resoure  plan-
ning including:
  (i) State land use programs.
  (ii)   Activities  stemming  from  the
Coastal Zone Management Act  (Pub. L.
92-583).
  (ill)  Activities  stemming  from  the
Rural  Development Act of 1972  (Pub. L.
92-419).
  (iv)  Other Federally assisted planning
and management programs.
  (c) Areawide and facilities plans, when
approved by the States, shall modify ap-
plicable portions of a basin  plan with
respect to:
  <1) number and location of discharges,
provided that the total waste load allo-
cated to the facilities or areawide plan
area by the basin plan Is not exceeded;
  (2) schedules of compliance or target
abatement dates; and
  < 3) the assessment of facilities needs.
   
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        19643
 § 131.404  Output of monitoring surveys.
   The monitoring survey shall produce
 sufficient  information to  support the
 planning for the area. Output shall in-
 clude, but  is not limited to, the  follow-
 ing:
   (a)  A listing of all surface waters, by
 stream segment or water zone, which do
 not comply with applicable water quality
 standards.
   (b)  In Water  Quality  segments,  a
 description of  pollutant mass balances,
 including estimates of the total pollutant
 loads to be controlled in the segment.
   (c) Input to the EPA water quality in-
 formation system of basic data collected
 during   the monitoring  survey,  and
 validation and  correction of data avail-
 able prior to the survey.
   (d) A listing of stations, parameters,
 and frequencies to be monitored to pro-
 vide compliance,  progress measurement,
 and trend  information required by this
 chapter.
   (e)  A  proposed  schedule,  based on
 variability  of  stream  quality, expected
 changes in flow and effluent regimes, or
 other information, for the  subsequent
 monitoring survey to be undertaken in
 the same basin.
 § 131.405  Water quality data from fixed
    stations; input to EPA information
    system.
   (a)  Each basin plan may provide for
 the maintenance of  a small number of
 permanent  in-stream  water  quality
 trend evaluation stations at key locations
 in each basin to measure progress toward
 applicable water  quality standards and
 goals, trends in water quality, and com-
pliance with approved basin plans, and
where provided, shall be used as a basis
for completing the reports  required by
 305 (b) of the Act.
   (b)  The  operation of these stations
shall  continue  after the completion  of
applicable  monitoring surveys required
 by this subpart.
   (c)  The  State  shall input data from
such  stations  to  the EPA  information
system in such  manner as the State and
the Regional Administrator shall agree.
Subpart  E—Completion and Review  of
  Basin Plans;  Relation of Permits and
   Grants
 § 131.500  Basin plan adoption.
  Basin plans shall be officially adopted,
after  appropriate public participation
as  described  in   § 131.502  as  the
official water quality management plans
of the State. Background data not re-
quired to be included in the basin plans
need not be adopted, but should be made
 available upon request.
 § 131.501  Certification.
  Eaph basin plan shall include  assur-
ances and a certification by the Governor
or his destgnee, that the plan is the offi-
 cial  State  water  quality management
 plan for the  hydrologic unit covered by
 such plan,  that the  plan meets all ap-
plicable requirements  of this Part 131
 and Part 130 of this chapter and that the
 plan will be used  for establishing permit
 conditions,  target abatement dates and
 assessing priorities for awarding  con-
 struction grants.
 § 131.502   Public participation.
   (a)  There shall be conducted, prior to
 the adoption or any substantive revision
 of  the basin plan  and after reasonable
 notice thereof, one or more public hear-
 ings on  the proposed basin plan or on
 parts of the basin plan, in accordance
 with EPA regulations promulgated pur-
 suant to section 101 (e) of the Act.
   (b)  For purposes of this section:
   (1) The term "public hearing" refers
 to  a hearing in which three basic  ele-
 ments of public participation  are pres-
 ent: Total  public  disclosure;  planning
 agency representation; and sufficient op-
 portunity for expression of  views by the
 public. For  the purposes of this section,
 a public hearing need not be an adjudi-
 catory hearing. Further explanation of
 the public hearing process is contained in
 Part 105 of this chapter.
   (2) The term "substantive" includes
 but is not limited to any significant re-
 vision  of water quality standards, total
 maximum daily loads for Water Quality
 segments, load allocations for individual
 dischargers, effluent  limitations,  sched-
 ules of compliance, or target abatement
 dates.
  (3) "Reasonable notice"  includes, at
 least 30  days prior to the date of each
 hearing:
  (i)  Notice to the public by prominent
 advertisement   announcing  the  date,
 time, and place of such hearing and the
 availability  of  the  proposed basin  plan
 for public inspection; and
  (ii) Notification  to the Regional Ad-
 ministrator.
  (c)  There shall be prepared and re-
 tained for submission to the  Regional
 Administrator upon his request a record
 of each hearing. The record shall con-
 tain, at a minimum, a list  of witnesses
 together with  the text of each written
 presentation.
  (d) There shall be submitted with the
 basin plan a description of any major
 controversy  raised  by the hearing and
 the disposition thereof.
  (e)  The number and location of hear-
 ings shall reflect the size of the planning
 area and its population and population
 distribution.  Public  participation  and
 contribution shall be encouraged, com-
mencing with the earliest possible stages
of basin plan development and continu-
ing throughout the period of the basin
plan  preparation,  including  revisions
 thereof. The State may conduct its pub-
 lic  hearing  on the  basin  plan  simul-
 taneously with public hearings on per-
 mits in the area covered by the basin
plan or in conjunction with any other
public hearing  involving the significant
revision of water quality standards, total
 maximum daily loads, load allocations,
 effluent limitations or schedules of com-
pliance.  If  a  public  hearing was con-
 ducted on a segment of the basin plan
 for the purpose of  the  issuance of per-
mits or significantly revising water qual-
ity  standards,  total  maximum  daily
 loads, load  allocations,  effluent limita-
tions,  or schedules  of compliance, then
 this portion of the basin plan need not
 be subject to additional public hearings.
 §131.503   Submission of basin plans.
   Basin plan submission shall be accom-
 plished by  delivering five copies of the
 adopted portions of the basin  plan  to
 the Regional   Administrator,  together
 with a letter from the Governor, or his
 designee, notifying the Regional  Admin-
 istrator of such action.

 § 131.504   Review and approval or dis-
     approval of basin plans.
   The  Regional Administrator  shall
 approve or  disapprove the basin plan
 submitted  pursuant  to  § 131.503 within
 30 days after the date of submission as
 follows:
   (a)  If the Regional Administrator de-
 termines that  the basin plan conforms
 with the  requirements of the Act, this
 part,  the  continuing planning  process
 and contiguous  plans  including neigh-
 boring States'  plans, he shall notify the
 Governor or his designee by letter.
   (b)  If the Regional Administrator de-
 termines  that   the  basin  plan  fails  to
 process or  contiguous plans including
 Act, this part,  the continuing planning
 conform with  the requirements of the
 those of neighboring states, he shall no-
 tify the Governor or his designee by let-
 ter and shall state:
   (1)  The specific revisions necessary  to
 obtain approval of the basin plan; and
   (2) -The time period for  resubmission
 of the basin plan.
   (c)  Where basin  plans involving in-
 terstate waters are  found to be incom-
patible, the Regional  Administrator shall
 notify the Governor of each concerned
 State of the specific areas of incompati-
 bility.
 §131.505   Revision of basin plans.
   (a)  At  a  minimum, the State  shall
 revise  each basin plan within five  years
 of  the last approval  date. The  basin
 plan shall  be  revised  such that it re-
 mains  a meaningful water quality  man-
 agement document for the five-year pe-
 riod following  the  revisions. Revisions
 on a more frequent basis should be made
 where  significant changes occur within
 the  basin. Revisions shall  include, but
 not  be limited  to, the most current and
 realistic   information  on   compliance
 schedules  or  target  abatement dates,
 construction grant needs and priorities,
 and waste load allocations. In addition,
 the basin plan  shall  be revised such that
 its increase in scope is in accordance
 with § 131.202.
   (b)  Revisions of the basin  plan  shall
 be adopted after  reasonable notice and
 public hearings as prescribed in § 131.502.
   (c) Revisions  shall be submitted  in
 accordance  with § 131.503.
   (d)  Review  and approval  or disap-
 proval of basin plan revisions shall be
 carried out in accordance with § 131.504.
 § 131.506   Prohibition of  approval of
     certain basin plans; withdrawal of
     process approval.
  The  Regional Administrator shall not
 approve any basin plan that does not
 conform with  the appropriate require-
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39,  NO.  107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
19644
RULES AND REGULATIONS
                  meats  of  section  303<2)
                  (P-K), 303,  and 314(a) of the Act.
                  the continuing planning process, and this
                  part. Substantial  failure of any basin
                  plan to conform with the applicable re-
                  quirements of section 303 (e) of the Act
                  and of this part may indicate that the
                  planning  process  by which such basin
                  plan was  developed was deficient and
                  may result in withdrawal  of approval
                  of  the planning  process,  or portions
                  thereof, relating to such basin plan. Ap-
                  proval of the State's participation in the
                  National Pollutant Discharge  Elimina-
                  tion System may be withdrawn if the
                  process is not fully approved.
                  § 131.507   Prohibition  of  certain  con-
                       struction grants.
                    Before approving a grant for any proj-
                  ect for any treatment works under sec-
                  tion 201 (g) of the Act, the Regional Ad-
                  ministrator shall determine,  pursuant
                  to § 35.925-2 of this chapter, that such
                  works are in conformity with any appli-
                  cable basin plan approved in accordance
                  with this part and Part  130 of this chap-
                  ter. Disapproval by the Regional Admin-
                  istrator of a basin plan, or relevant por-
               tion thereof, for the area where a project
               is to be located may constitute grounds
               for npt approving a grant for such proj-
               ect, if the disapproval of the basin plan,
               or  relevant portion thereof, Is directly
               related to the project.

               § 131.508   Discharge permit term*  and
                    conditions.
                 Each permit issued under the National
               Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
               to any source covered by the basin plan
               shall be prepared in accordance with the
               basin plan, as provided in f 131.310. Fail-
               ure of any  permit to conform with the
               requirements  of this section may  con-
               stitute grounds for the Regional Admin-
               istrator or the Administrator to object to
               the issuance of such permit.
               § 131.509   Separability.
                  If any provision of this part, or the
               application of any provision of this part
               to  any person or circumstance, is held
               Invalid, the application of such provi-
               sion to other persons or circumstances,
               and the remainder of this part, shall not
               be affected thereby.
                  [FR Doc.74-12558 Filed 5-31-74;8:45 am)
                               FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 39. NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3,  1974
-------
    IV.  4
      FRIDAY, JUNE 29,  1973

      WASHINGTON, D.C.

      Volume  38  • Number  125
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
     PART 35
—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
          Interim Regulations
  Interim regulations  are  hereby  pro-
mulgated  to publish a new codification
of the portions of 40 CFR Part 35, State
and  Local assistance grant regulations
which pertain to water pollution control
program grant awards. These interim
regulations  supplement  the  Environ-
mental Protection Agency general grant
regulations (40 CPR Part 30). They pro-
vide minimum guidelines  for  Federal
grant assistance to the States and inter-
state agencies to assist them in adminis-
tering their water pollution control pro-
grams.
  Section  106 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution  Control  Act,  as  amended  (P.L.
92-500;  86 Stat.  816;  33  U.S.C.  1256
(1972)), authorizes the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to
make annual allotments from sums ap-
propriated by Congress in each fiscal
year on the basis of the extent of the
pollution problem in the several  States.
The  Act requires that the Administrator
promulgate regulations  governing  such
allotments.
  These regulations describe the annual
State program for the control and abate-
ment of water pollution and for the al-
location of Federal  grant  assistance to
support these State  programs. The pro-
gram should be viewed as one part of an
overall management system to be  used
by the States, interstate agencies, and
-------
LPA in c;r lying out the requnemeius ol
the Federal Water Pollution Contiol Act
Amendments ot  1972  The system begins
with the establishment of the continu-
ing planning piocess  described  in  Part
130 of this chapter. The  process is de-
signed to provide  States with the  basis
for developing a "State Strategy" which
nntains as assessment of their pollution
problems, a means for developing  their
control  strategies, and for assessing re-
sults  The State strategy, which will be
based upon  basin  plans \\here they are
completed and upon  available informa-
tion where the plans  are not completed,
together with other associated  outputs,
provide  the  basis  for developing  each
State's annual program.
  The  program  is  the  management
device which the State uses to establish
what it will accomplish during the  year,
allocate  its  resources, and  assess  its
progress toward those accomplishments.
At  the same time, the  State program
provides EPA  the basis  for pioviding
Federal  grants  to  supplement   State
funds;  to  include providing  funds for
program activity  at  the  State  level in
developing   and  implementing  waste
treatment management plans
  Finally the  regulations describe the
mechanism  by  which reports are  pro-
duced and   submitted, and  by which
State efforts are evaluated to determine
the  compliance  milestones   achieved.
effluent reductions achieved,  the extent
to  which water quality  has impioved,
progiam status, and  resource allocation
and use
  Interested parties  are  encouiaged to
submit written comments, suggestions,
views, or data  concerning the  uHcnm
regulations  promulgated herebv  to' Di-
rector,  Grants Administration Duision,
Environmental    Protection    Agencv,
Washington, DC.  20460  All  such  sub-
missions  received on  or  before August
13, 1973 will be considered piior to the
promulgation of final regulations.
  Effective date. The interim  water pro-
gram  regulations  promulgated  hereby
shall become effective on June  29,  1973.
All  Environmental Protection   Agency
water program  grants  awarded  after
June 30,  1973, pursuant  to Public Law
92-500 shall be subject to these regula-
tions It is necessary that these regula-
tions take effect  prior to a  thirty day
period following promulgation to insure
their implementation \v ithout  delay at
the beginning of the next fiscal vear and
to  permit States  to submit applications
for pi oKram grants from funds available
during the next fiscal year in accordance
with the  new procedures  established
pursuant  to these  regulations   Prior
regulations  <37  FR  11655,  11658-60)
governing water  progiam  grants  shall
remain  applicable  to grants  avva'.ded
Irom funds  appropriated  for the  fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973 Prior regula-
tions  (37  FR  11655-58i  governing the
award of air program grants remain m
effect.
   Dated: June  27, 1973.
                    ROBERT W. FBI,
                 Acting Administrator.
  In Subp.ut B .'1 4U CFR Part 35, the
fallowing  sc-uuoi..^  are  levised as set
forth below, pursuant to the authorities
cited in 40 CFR 30.106.

tj 3.1.100  I'urpOM-.
  This subpart. which establishes and
codifies policy  and  procedures for air
and  water  pollution  control*program
assistance grants, supplements the EPA
general  grant  regulations   and  pro-
cedures (Part 30 of this chapter> and  is
applicable  to  air and  water program
grants. These grants are intended  to aid
programs for the prevention and control
of air or water pollution at  the  State,
interstate or local level
§ 3.1.100-2   \\.il.r pollution control pro.
     cram grant .i%\«irubpart is issued under sections
105, 106 and 301 (a) ef the Clean Air Act,
as amended i42 U.S.C. 1857c, 1857c-l.
and 1857g> and section 106 and  501  of
the  Federal Water Pollution Control Art
Amendment, of 1972 < 3.< USC 1256 and
1361i.
§ 31.10.1   Critrri.i lor evaluation ol plo-
     cr.iin olijccti\r«.
   ia>  Programs set out in  the applica-
tion and submitted in accordance with
these  regulations shall  be  evaluated  in
writing  by  the Regional Administrator
to determine:
   HI  Consistency  and compatibility  of
ptoals and expected results with national
stiatu'-ues in implementing the purpose
and policies of  the Clean Air Act and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  as
amended
   (2)  Feasibility of achieving goals and
expected results m  relation to existing
problems, past  performance, program au-
thority, 01 ganization, resources and pro-
cedures
   (b>   Approval of  the program de-
veloped  pursuant  to  S 35 525 tair)   or
535.554  (water) shall be based  on the
extent to which the applicant's program
satisfies the above criteria.
§35.110  Evaluation  of program  prr-
     ioriiian  Program performance evaluations
shall be conducted at least annually  by
the  appropriate Regional Administrator
and the grantee to provide a basis for
measuring progress toward achieving ap-
proved program objectives or milestones
dcsciibed in the program.  The evalua-
tion shall address the objectives respon-
sibilities, major functions,  and   other
i elated  activities   set   forth in the
grantees' approved pioyram For air pro-
gram  gi ants, the ev aluation shall be com-
pleted not  later than 120 days  before
the beginning  of the new burU'pf period.
  .
 These regulations aie intended to foster
 development  of State  programs  which
 implement PL 92-500.
 § 3.1. .1.12   Definition...
  As used  herein, the following words
 and terms  shall have  the  meaning set
 forth below:
 § 3.1. .1.12- I   \llolMM lit.
  The sum reserved for each State  or
 interstate agency  from funds  appropri-
 ated by Congress. The allotment is de-
 termined by formula based on the extent
 of  the  water pollution  problem in the
 several States. It represents the maxi-
 mum amount of money potentially avail-
 able to the State for its program grant.
 § 35. .1.12— 2  Stale program frranl.
  The  amount of  Federal assistance
 awarded  to a State to assist in  admin-
 istering programs for 'the  prevention,
 reduction,  and  elimination  of  water
 pollution.
 § 3.1. ,1.12— 3  Stair program.
  The annual submissions including re-
 visions, which describe the State's com-
 mitments to  control water  pollution  in
 conformance with § 35.555.
                                 FEDERAt  REGISTER, VOl  38, NO  '25—FRIDAY, JUNE 29.  1973
-------
 § 35.552—1 Number of pollution sources.
   A count  of  the  sources of discharge
 associated with any:
   (a)  One of  the  twenty-seven Stand-
 ard Industrial  classification (SIC) codes
 listed  in section 306(b)(l)(A)  of the
 Act (the number of establishments are
 reported in the latest edition of "Census
 of Manufacturers," U.S. Department of
 Commerce);
   (b)  Municipality (as reported in the
 EPA Municipal Waste Facilities Direc-
 tory, dated April 6. 1972) :
   (c)  Powtr plant (Nuclear, oil, coal or
 gas)  (as reported in "STEAM ELEC-
 TRIC  PLANT  FACTORS," NATIONAL
 COAL ASSOCIATION, 1971 edition);
   (d)  Feedlot  (of more than 1000  head
 capacity) (as reported in "CATTLE ON
 FEED," U.S. Department of Agriculture,
 January, 1972).
   Revisions  to  the  above  references
 will be used to recompute the allocation
 if available prior  to  the  beginning of
 each fiscal year.
 § 35.552-5  Suite agency.
   The agency  designated  by the Gov-
 ernor to  apply for and receive the State's
 program grant and responsible for co-
 ordinating the water quality control pro-
 gram or primarily  responsible  for co-
 ordinating the  State water quality laws.
 § 35.552-6  Interstate agency.
   Any agency denned  in section 502(2)
 of the Act which is determined eligible
 for receipt of a grant under these regu-
 lations by the Administrator.
 § 35.552-7  Reasonable cost.
   The  allowable and allocable costs, up
 to the level of  the  annual allocation as
 determined by the Administrator, of de-
 veloping and administering a pollution
 control program by a State or interstate
 agency consistent with the intent and
 purposes of the  Act.
 § 35.552-8  Interstate segment.
  That portion  of  the area  of  respon-
 sibility of an Interstate agency which
 lies entirely within  the borders of a sin-
 gle State.

 § 35.552-9  Recurrent expenditures.
  Those  expenditures which are Identi-
 fied as being acceptable as recurrent ex-
 penditures under generally accepted ac-
counting principles and approved by the
Regional Administrator.
 § 35.553  1 Annual guidance.
  EPA  will  develop  and  disseminate
 annual guidance to  be used by the States
to structure their program for the com-
ing year. The  guidance will contain a
statement of the national strategy in-
 cluding national objectives and national
priorities  for  the  year together with
 planning  figures for Federal program
 grant  assistance  based  on  the EPA
 budget approved by the President.  The
 guidance will  be disseminated within
 thirty days after the President  delivers
 his budget to Congress.
 § 35.554   State strategy formulation and
     program development.
 § 35.534—1  State  strategy  formulation.
  Based on  (a)  current water quality,
 (b)  evaluation of program achievements
 to date, (c)  State  plans developed pur-
 suant to Section 303(e)  of the Act, and
 (d)  the  annual EPA  guidance,  each
 State  fhall  prepare  an annual  State
 strategy statement. The strategy  shall
 contain:
   (1) A statewide  assessment of  water
 quality problems and the causes of these
 problems;
   (2) A listing of  the geographical and
 discharger priorities  relative  to  these
 problems;
   (3) A listing  of the  prior'ties  and
 scheduling   of  permits,  coi.struction
 grants,  basin plans, and other appropri-
 ate program  actions including a descrip-
 tion of how  the strategy has been de-
 veloped in  concert with non-point source
 control.
 § 35.554—2   State program development.
  Each State shall  develop, in consulta-
 tion with the Regional Administrator, a
 program based on  its  strategy pursuant
 to | 35.554-1  (to include defining regional
 resource support).  The essence  of the
 program is relating resources—both Fed-
 eral and non-Federal—to achieve the ex-
 pected outputs. Program outputs are then
 adjusted to  conform  to resource  con-
 straints. To  the extent  feasible,  each
 State program shall include considera-
 tion of efforts In the areas of non-point
 source control  and  abatement, and sup-
 porting land use control practices.  The
 program shall  describe how each major
 program element fits  with the strategy
 and  shall indicate:
  (a) the  expected outputs to be  ob-
 tained pursuant to  § 35.554-3(b);
  (b) the  resources to be expended by
 the State to  produce the expected out-
puts, including anticipated Federal finan-
 cial  and technical assistance; and
  (c) an analysis of the previous year's
 effort. Information  on each program ele-
ment shall be presented in summary form
 aggregated at the State level.
 § 35.554—3   Major   program  elements
     and outputs.
  (a) The  major program elements are:
  (1) Municipal  facilities  construction,
 operation, and  maintenance
  (2) Permits
  (3) Planning (to  include water quality
 standards)
  (4) Monitoring
  (5) Enforcement
  (6) Training
  (7) Administration
  (b) State  outputs. Each  major  pro-
gram element shall identify the specific
outputs  to  be produced by that activity
during the year. Additional program ele-
ments and  their associated outputs may
be addressed  in the annual program as
deemed  appropriate by the State or the
Regional Administrator. The major pro-
gram outputs may  include but are  not
 limited to:
   (1)  Municipal Fac.ilii.ies Construction,
 Operation,  &  Maintenance. A descrip-
 tion of the State priority system, includ-
 ing the criteria used by the State in de-
 termining priority of treatment  works,
 and an identification of projects to re-
 ceive grants for facility planning (step
 1), engineering design and specifications
 (step  2), and construction  of facilities
 (step 3)  submitted for  approval  pursu-
 ant to § 35.915 of this chapter.
   (i) In  determining which projects  to
 fund, the State shall consider the severity
 of pollution problems, the population af-
 fected, the need for preservation of high
 quality waters, and the national  priori-
 ties as  determined by the Administrator
 (normally contained in  the annual EPA
 guidance).
   (ii)  The projects to be funded  should
 be  consistent with but  need not  rigidly
 follow the ranking of discharges  in the
 municipal discharge inventory  developed
 pursuant to  § 130.43 of this  chapter;
 however, projects should be concentrated
 in the high priority areas.
   dii)  Adequate  justification   must  be
 provided for those projects to be funded
 which are located in  low priority areas
 (e.g. court orders,  critical  discharges  in
 low priority segment, etc.).
   (iv)  The composition of  the  list  of
 projects to be  funded should reflect the
 guidance  contained in the  annual EPA
 guidance.
   (v)  The list of projects may be revised
 in accordance with § 35.915.
   (2) Municipal Permits.  Number  and
 identification of municipal permits to be
 issued by the State for the year covered
 by  the  program. The municipal permits
 to be issued should be determined  by the
 same criteria as described  in paragraph
 (b) (1) (i) of this section.
   (3) Industrial Permits.  Numbi r  and
 identification of industrial  permits or
 permits for other categories to be issued
 by the State  for the year covered  by the
 program.  The  industrial permits to be
 issued  should   be  determined by  the
 same criteria as described in paragraph
 (b) (1) (i) of this section.
  (4) Planning. Number and identifica-
 tion of plans  (by type) :
  (i)  Basin plans  (Section 303(e)  of the
 Act). The number and priority of plans
 determined from the schedule for plan
 preparation   developed   pursuant   to
 § 130.42 of this chapter  and the sched-
 ules contained  in the strategy developed
 pursuant to § 35.554-1.
  (n) Areawide Plans  (Section 208 of
 the Act). The number and scheduling of
 areawide management plans pursuant to
 section  208  of  the Act in  accordance
with the  designation criteria  set forth
 in any  regulations published to imple-
 ment section 208.
  (iii)  Facility Plans  (535.925-J). The
number and priority  of facility  plans
consistent with the priorities contained
in the municipal discharge inventory de-
veloped pursuant to § 130.43 of this chap-
ter  or  § 35.915.  Required  plans  are
scheduled to permit  their completion
prior to award of grants for construction
 (phases) projects.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 3$, NO. 125—FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1973
-------
   (5)  Monitoring. Number and identifi-
 cation of monitoring surveys to be done
 (by type):
   (i)  Basin  monitoring  surveys. The
 number and priorities  of these surveys
 determined  in  conjunction  with  the
 schedule  for 303(e)  basin plans.
   (11)  Compliance Monitoring. The ex-
 tent of  compliance  monitoring related
 to the number of permits issued and the
 State's  determination  of  compliance
 monitoring reauired  to insure that the
 permit-reporting system is operating.
   (iii) Permanent in-stream monitoring
 stations.  The number  and location of
 stations required to  prepare the annual
 State  water  quality  inventory required
 by section 305(b) of the Act.
   (6)  Enforcement. Number of proceed-
 ings on actions initiated  prior to the
 passage of the Act; number of enforce-
 ment  actions to  be undertaken,  con-
 tinued, or completed against violators of
 permit conditions and implementation
 schedules; and,  identification  and brief
 discussion  of   major   actions   and
 proceedings.
   (7)  Training.  Number  and  distribu-
 tion of waste treatment plant operators
 to  be  trained  and   certified;  type  of
 operator  training  to  be received; and,
 identification  of level of training and
 certification of total operator  force.
   (8)  Administration. Identification and
 description of overall program  adminis-
 tration to include  major  changes  to
 occur during the year.
   (c)  Section 106(a) of the Act places
 special emphasis on  including enforce-
 ment  directly  or  through  appropriate
 State law enforcement officers or  agen-
 cies as part  of  the  State program. A
 description  of  enforcement  as a pro-
 gram activity should  be included in the
 State program.
   (d) Section 106 of the Act also places
 special emphasis on monitoring. For the
 purpose of this  regulation,  the follow-
 ing brief description of monitoring  as
 a program activity is provided.  Further
details are set forth  in Appendix  A to
 this subpart and § 35.559-6(b) (1).
  (1)  A minimum monitoring  program
 shall utilize physical,  chemical and bio-
logical analyses, and  shall include:
  (i) Intensive  surface water monitor-
Ing surveys;
  (ii)  A primary monitoring network;
  (hi)  Permit compliance monitoring;
  (iv)  Groundwater quality monitoring;
  (v)  A means  of collecting  data for
inventories  of  point  and  non-point
sources of pollution;
  (vi)  Classification  of inland  lakes by
eutrophic condition;
  (vii) Laboratory support and a quality
assurance program; and
  (viii) A data handling, storage, evalu-
ation and reporting  activity.
  (2)   The State  monitoring  program
shall be carried out in such a manner as.
 to:
  (i) Provide  support to the  Planning
Process developed under Part 130  of
 this chapter;
  (ii)  Conduct permit compliance  mon-
itoring, including  spot checks  of  per-
mitted dischargers, utilizing authorities
similar to those  provided under Section
308 of the Act and administer the self-
monitoring and reporting requirements
of the NPDE8 in States  having permit
programs approved by  the Administra-
tor;
  (iii) Provide basic data necessary to
update annually  the descriptions  and
analyses required by Section 305(b) of
the Act, including specific identification
of all State waters suitable for sustain-
ing a  balanced population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife, and  which allow for
recreational  activities  in and on  the
water;
  of J 30.305 of  this chapter.
 Such program shall be approved only If
 the  program satisfies all  terms, condi-
 tions, and limitations set forth in these
 regulations,   including   adequate  re-
 sources  for  enforcement directly  or
 through appropriate State law enforce-
 ment officers or agencies.
   (b) The Regional Administrator may
 award a grant based on conditional ap-
 proval  of a State program  which re-.
 quires minor changes to qualify for ap-
 proval.    In  the   event   conditional
 approval is  granted, the  Regional  Ad-,
 mlnistrator shall establish as part of thet
 grant award, a  statement of  the condi-l
 tions which must be met to secure final*
 approval and the  date  by which  such
 conditions shall be met.
 § 35.558 Allocation of funds.
  Funds  appropriated for each fiscal
 year will be allocated  to States  and
 interstate agencies on the basis of the
 extent of the pollution problem.
 § 35.558-1   Computation  of  state allot-
     ment ratio.
  An allotment ratio will be established
 for each State.
   (a) The  initial  allotment ratio for
 FY  1974 will be established according
 to the ratio  of the number of pollution
 sources  in the  State compared  to the
 number  of  pollution  sources in  the
 nation.
  (b) The initial allotment ratio com-
 puted in paragraph  (a) of this  section
 will  be applied to the first $20 million of
 sums appropriated  to produce  a  base
 allocation. The base  allocation  of  any
 State which falls below the level of its
 FY 1973 allocation will be restored to the
 FY  1973 allocation  level, using  funds
 from the balance of the appropriation,
 subject to the availability of funds.
  (c) The remainder of the  appropria-
 tion is then divided among the States in
 amounts  proportional to what was re-
 ceived following the procedure described
 in § 35.558-1 (b). Each State's incentive
 amount  is then subdivided to fund the
 key  program elements identified by the
 annual EPA guidance.
  (d) The State allocation is  the sum of
 its base allocation and all portions of its
 incentive amount, except that no State
 may be allocated more than three hun-
 dred percent of its FY 1973 grant amount.
 § 35.558—2   Computation  of Interstate
     Allocation.
  An amount not less than the FY 1973
level of funding  for  interstate agencies
 will be divided among interstate agencies.
 § 35.558-3   Compulation  of  State  Allo-
     cation.
  The table below shows the final allot-
 ment ratio for FY 1974 erf each State and
 Interstate after  applying the procedures
 described in § 35.558-1 (a)-(d).
      FINAL FY 1974 ALLOTMEKT RATIO
   STATE/                 ALLOTMENT
 INTERSTATE                  RATIO
Alabama		 .02663
Alaska	 .00303
Arizona	 .00816
Arkansas			 .01478
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 3», NO. 125—FRIDAY, JUNE 29,  1973
-------
Kiatc/
Inter-
state
California ---
Colorado 	
Connecticut -
Delaware 	
District of
Columbia _







Kentucky 	
Louisiana —
Maryland 	
Massa-
chusetts --
Michigan 	
Minnesota 	
Mississippi --
Missouri 	
Montana 	
Nebraska 	
New
Hampshire.
State/
Interstate

Trust Terntoi
ORSANCO
DRBC
ISC
INCOPOT
NEIWPCC
SRBC 	
Allot.
mcnt
ratio
.05890
.00338
01532
00844
00833
.02577
.03116
00708
00779
03739
02095
01454
.01055
.01471
.01686
.01102
01687
02879
.03578
.01873
.01488
.01763
.00686
.01150
.00350
.00679

•ies






State' Aiiot-
Intcr- ment
state ratio
New Jeisey -_ .02738
New Mexico . .00578
New York 	 .05509
North
Carolina -- 03C72
North Dakota. .00433
Ohio 	 03814
Oklahoma 	 .01107
Oregon _ .01638
Pennsylvania. 04475
Rhode" Island. 01044
South
Carolina .. 01990
South Dakota. 00449
Tennessee 	 .01807
Texas 036f'4
Utah 	 .00615
Vermont 	 00497
Virginia .- 02515
Washington . .02141
West
Virginia ... 01270
Wisconsin — 02828
Wyoming 	 .00327
American
Samoa . .. 0'156
Virgin
Islands 	 .00733
Allotment
Ratio
00741
	 	 _ .01628
00337
.. 	 .00671
00444
00546
.00285
. .00449
	 00163
§ 35.358—1  Notification of fund-.
  (a i Tentative  allowances   No  later
than April 15  of each year, the Admin-
istrator   will  issue  to  each  Regional
Administrator  a tentative regional allow -
ance for the next fiscal year. This tenta-
tive allowance (planning targets will be
based on the amount of the appropria-
tion  requested for the next fiscal year.
The Regional Administrator shall notify
each State and interstate agency of its
tentative allotment  for the next fiscal
year.
  (b> Final allowances. As soon as prac-
ticable after funds are made  available,
the Administrator  will issue to each Re-
gional Administrator a final regional al-
lowance  for State, and  interstate allot-
ments from the funds appropiiated for
each fiscal year.
  <>   (jraul .unomii.
§ 35,.>59—1  ( oinjtul.ilioii <>! maximum
     -rr.iiu.
  (a> M(.x>mu>'i   lxvv>  grant  amount.
Each Sintc shai! receue a maximum base
grant equal ac least to its total giant for
FY 73, subject to  t'-e  availability of
iund».
  i b)  Maximum incentive grant amount.
Each  State shall  receive  a maximum
incentive  grant equal  to  'the  amount
of the allotment,  computed in  accord-
ance  with § 35.558-3, less the maximum
base  grant computed in paragraph  (a»
of this section  Each  State's incentive
amount is divided  into amounts to fund
the key program elements identified by
the annual EPA guidance.
§ 35.559-2  Determination.
  Each State and interstate agency shall
receive a grant from its final allotment in
an amount not to  exceed the reasonable
cost of carrying out its approved annual
program including the  cost of enforce-
ment  directly or   through appropriate
State  law   enforcement   officers   or
agencies.
   ia»  From the maximum grant amount
reserved for each  State, grants  shall be
approved by the Regional Administrator
in amounts to be  determined by him to
fund  the base program and the key pro-
gram functions identified by the EPA an-
nual  guidance as being of particular im-
portance to a  sound water pollution con-
trol program.
     The Regional Administrator shall
use the initial resource distribution set
forth  in the  maximum grant structure
determined for each  State  (i.e.  base
amount plus incentive amounts' as the
initial basis for approving a grant.
   11)  Should  a State elect not to operate
a  permit, program under  the  National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES—Part 124 of this  chapter), ' ie
Regional Administrator shall not appiove
any portion of  the funds  for the State
Aithm that program element. Funds re-
covered by tl>.-se procedures will remain
within the Region to be available for re-
allotment to States as the  Regional  Ad-
ministrator may direct.
   (21  Should  a State propose a different
funding mix to produce a set of outputs
in t:ie annual  program, the Regional Ad-
ministrator may  approve  the  different
mix, provided  he believes the outputs can
oe produced.  However, it  a State  fails
si:' stanually  to produce the outputs to
which it was  committed in its program,
the Regional Administrator may recover
the program costs of such outputs up to
che amount originally proposed for the
particular  program element Recovery
may  be by reduction of remaining grant
payments,  reduction of  the following
year's grant, or by  request for repayment.
Funds reco\ered by these procedure-, will
remain within the Region to be available
for reallotmcnt to  States as, the Regional
Administrator may direct
   (3)  Should  a State submit an approv-
able program and a funduiy strategy con-
sistent with  the  mix  leflected  in  the
State s maximum grant, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall aullioii/e the awaul of
a  grant in the amount applied lor, con-
sistent with its program de\ eloped pursu-
ant to ^ 35.534-2.
   i4>  Should  the  Regional AdmmMia-
tor's  evaluation ol  the State  premium
submission reveal that the output coir>-
iniiment is not consistent with the lev0
of funding requested, he shall negotiate
with the State either to increase the out-
put commitment or to reduce the crant
amount  Funds freed by this procedure
will remain within the region to be a\ai'-
able for reailotment to State agencies as
the Regional Administrator may direct.
   (5) At the end of  each program yem,
unobligated funds will  revert  to head-
quarters for reailotment in  accordance
with 5 35 558-4(o.
§ 35.559—3  lirdiii lion of prant amount.
   (a> The grantee must submit a com-
plete application on  or  before June  15,
preceding the fiscal  year for which the
program application  is  prepared. If the
State or interstate agency does not meet
chis deadline,  the grant amount shaJl be
reduced one-sixth of the first six months'
available allotment for each full month's
delay. This money will be available for
reailotment on a national basis.
   (b) If  the  Regional  Administrator's
program  evaluation  reveals  that  the
grantee will fail or has  failed to achieve
outputs programmed (see 5 35 554-3), the
grant amount may be reduced by the ap-
proved  estimated program cost to pro-
duce such outputs. This money  will be
available for reailotment 10 State's within
the region.
§ 35.559—4  Grunt   amount  limit  and
     duration.
   Following approval of the program the
budget period of the grant shall be the
entire fiscal year and Federal assistance
shall  not exceed  the allotment limits
specified in §  35.448-2 plus reallotments
under  §35 058-4,  § 35.559-2(b)  and
§ 35.559-3(b).

g  35.559-5   Eligibility.
   A grant may be awarded to a State
or  interstate  water pollution  control
agency which has submitted an applica-
tion meeting the program requirements
of these regulations  provided however,
that such program has been approved by
the appropriate Regional Administrator.
§ 35.559—6   Limitation  of anard.
   (a) No grant  shall  be made under
these regulations to  any State or inter-
state agency  for any fiscal  year unless
the State has  certified that the expendi-
tuies of non-Federal funds by such State
or interstate  agency  during such fiscal
>ear for the recurrent expenses of car-
rying out its  pollution  control program
are  not  less than the  expenditures  by
such State or interstate agency of  non-
Federal funds for recuirent program ex-
penses  during the  fiscal  year  ending
June 30, 1971, or the first year of  Fed-
eral support if such Federal support was
initiated subsequent  to  the  fiscal  \ear
et;chng June 30, 1971.
   ib> No grant  shall  be  made under
these regulations to any State, beginning
in fiscal vear 1974, which has not  pro-
\idecl or is  not earning out a.s part of
its program:
   Hi  The  establishment  ">id  opcia-
tion of  appropnutc  devices,  method-,
M.-.tems.  nud  pioceduiea necc^ ary  to
                                    I'^L  REGISTER, VOL 38  NO  125—FRIDAY  JUNE 29, 1973
-------
monitor, and  to compile  and analyze
data on 'including classification accord-
ing to eutrophic condition), the quality
of navigable waters and  to the  extent
practicable,  ground waters including bi-
ological monitoring; and  provisions for
annually updating such data and includ-
ing it in the report required under Sec-
tion 305 of  the Act. Guidelines are set
forth in § 35.554-3 and Appendix A.
   <2) Authority comparable to that in
Section 504 of the Act, "Emergency Pow-
ers," and adequate contingency plans to
implement such authority.
   <3) The criteria used by the State in
determining priorities for municipal con-
struction projects as provided in i 35.915,
and for issuance of permits as-provided
in Part 124 of this chapter.
   (4) A provision that such agency shall
provide information concerning its  pro-
gram in the form and content that the
Regional Administrator may require.
§ 35.559—7  Grant conditions.
   In addition to the EPA General Grant
Conditions  (Appendix A to Subchapter
B of this chapter and Part 30, Subpart
C, of this chapter) each grant for water
pollution control programs shall be  sub-
ject to the following conditions:
   'a)  The  Regional Administrator  may
terminate a grant  awarded under  this
subpart  pursuant  to  § 30.903  of  this
chapter where  a Federally assumed en-
forcement as defined in section  309(a)
(2) of the Act is in effect with respect to
such State or interstate agency.
   (b)  The  Regional Administrator  may
terminate a grant awarded under  this
subpart  pursuant  to  § 30.903  of  this
chapter where the Administartor has not
approved or has revoked approval of the
continuing  planning  process  developed
under section 303 (e) of the Act and any
regulation issued by the  Administrator
thereunder.
§ 35.560  Program  evaluation anil  re-
     porting.
§ 35.560-1  Evaluation.
   Program  evaluation  is primarily a
State responsibility and should be done
continuously throughout the  program
year. It is EPA policy to limit evaluation
to  that which  is necessary for respon-
sible management of the national effort
to  control  water pollution.  Therefore,
joint Federal/State  evaluations will be
decentralized to the regional level. Each
Regional  Administrator  shall  review
State programs at least twice each year:
   (a)  Mid-year evaluation: By January
31 of each year, the Regional  Adminis-
trator shall conduct a joint on-site eval-
uation meeting with appropriate State
officials to review and evaluate the  pro-
gram accomplishments of the current
budget period in accordance with 5 35.410
of this Subpart. The Regional Adminis-
trator shall report to the Administrator
the results of each meeting within thirty
working days,  together with  comments
from the State.
   (b)   End-of-Year-Review:    Within
 thirty days of  receipt of  the final State
 program submission and grant applica-
tion,  the  Regional Administrator shall
review the accomplishments of the pro-
gram year which is concluded and the
accomplishments projected for the com-
ing year, as stated in the submission. His
review shall include (but  is not limited
to):
  (1)  Effluent reductions achieved
  (2) Improvement  in ambient water
quality
  (3) Compliance milestones achieved
  (4) Program status
  (5) Resource  allocation and  use
  This  review  is essential  to  program
approval pursuant to i 35.557.
§ 35.560-2  Reports.
  The  Regional  Administrator  may
modify  requirements pertaining to the
content or submission schedule of infor-
mation submissions  required  by  this
part.
§§ 35.565, 35.575   [Revoked]
  Sections 35.565 and 35.575 are revoked.
     APPENDIX A.  WATER  QUALITY
        MONITORING— 1 RESERVED 1
   APPENDIX
             B. PROGRAM
              [RESERVED]
                         REPORTING
 [PR Doc.73-13323 Filed 6-28-73,8 45 am)
-------
                            V.

PERMITS (NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM)
       AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING REGULATIONS
-------
                    V.I
                    FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1972
                    WASHINGTON, D.C.
                    Volume 37 • Number 247

                    PART III
                    ENVIRONMENTAL
                       PROTECTION
                         AGENCY
                      State Program Elements
                     Necessary (or Participation
                      in the National Pollutant
                    Discharge Elimination System
No. 247—Pt. Ill	1
-------
 28390
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   Title 40—PROTECTION OF

           ENVIRONMENT

Chapter I—Environmental Protection
               Agency

PART  124—STATE  PROGRAM  ELE-
  MENTS NECESSARY FOR PARTICfPA-
  TION IN THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
  DISCHARGE  ELIMINATION  SYSTEM

  Notice was published in the FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of November 11, 1972 (37
P.R. 24087) that the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency was giving consideration
to proposed guidelines for State program
elements necessary for participation in
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System. The proposed guidelines
described, pursuant to the authority con-
tained in section 304(h) (2) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (86 Stat.  816;  33 U.S.C.
1314 (1972))  (hereinafter referred to as
the  "Act"),  the  minimum procedural
and other  elements  of  any State pro-
grams under  section  402 of the Act.
  Section 402  of the Act creates a Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System under which the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
may, after  opportunity for public hear-
ing, issue permits  for the discharge of
any pollutant  or combination of pollut-
ants, upon condition that such  discharge
will meet all applicable  requirements of
the Act  relating to effluent limitations,
water quality standards and implemen-
tation plans,  new source  performance
standards,  toxic and  pretreatment efflu-
ent  standards, inspection, monitoring
and  entry provisions,  and  guidelines
establishing  ocean  discharge  criteria.
Section  402 also  provides that States
desiring  to administer their own permit
programs may submit  a full and  com-
plete description of  such a program to
the Administrator for approval. The Ad-
ministrator is to approve a State's  pro-
gram, and  suspend issuance of permits
under section  402,  unless he determines
that the State does not possess adequate
authority to  perform certain acts de-
tailed in section 402 adequately notify mem-
bers  of  the  public,  other States,  and
the  Secretary of  the Army of pending
permit  applications;  (c)  abate  viola-
tions  of permits, including  civil  and
criminal penalties; (d)  insure that the
State permitting agency receive adequate
notice of new introductions or substan-
tial changes in the volume or  character
of  pollutants  introduced  into publicly
owned treatment works; and (ei  insure
that any  industrial user  of publicly
owned  treatment  works  complies  with
 iretreatment  effluent   standards  and
 ither requirements. The State also must
have an approved continuing planning
process under section 303(e) of the Act
before  approval of  its permit program
can be granted.
  In addition to these requirements, a
State permit program  cannot be  ap-
proved unless it conforms to guidelines
issued  under section 304(h) (2)  of the
Act prescribing minimum procedural and
other elements  of  any State program
under  section  402.  These  guidelines,
which  are the  subject of this  notice,
must  include, but  are  not limited to,
monitoring and reporting requirements
(including procedures to make informa-
tion available to the public), enforce-
ment provisions, and requirements  for
funding,  personnel  qualifications,  and
manpower.
  Written comments on  the proposed
guidelines  were  invited  and  received
from  interested parties. A number of
verbal comments also were received. The
Environmental Protection  Agency has
carefully considered all submitted com-
ments. All written comments are on file
with the Agency. Certain of these com-
ments have been adopted or substantially
satisfied by editorial changes, deletions
from,  or additions  to the  guidelines.
These and other principal comments are
discussed below.
  1. Several commenters pointed put the
need  to make  clear that  participating
States  and interstate agencies should
have  all  procedures required by  the
guidelines  established by the State or
interstate agency  in the  form of  duly
promulgated regulations. The delays in-
herent  in the  process of promulgating
such  regulations,  however, should  not
delay  the Administrator's approval of
an otherwise acceptable program. To im-
plement these  concerns, a new  § 124.3
has been added to  subpart A to  make
clear that all authorities required by sec-
tion 402(b) of the Act must be  in the
form of State  statutes and regulations
and must be in full force  and effect at
the time of submission  of the  State
program. A new § 124.4 requires that the
procedures  required  by  the guidelines
must also be in the form of State statutes
and regulations but, if the State has the
necessary authority and submits  a pro-
gram which meets  the requirement of
the guidelines,  the  State has until Jan-
uary   1,  1974,  to  promulgate   such
regulations.
  2. Numerous   comments   suggested
means to improve the requirements for
signing NPDES forms. On the basis of
che comments,  corporate signature re-
quirements have been changed to permit
signature by authorized representatives
of principal executive officers where such
 «presentative is responsible for the op-
oration of the discharging facility.  See
$ 124.24(a>. Also, the language in  sub-
section (d)  is broadened to cover cate-
gories of  point sources other than  pub-
licly owned treatment works.
  3. On the  basis of comments received
and after consulting with the States in-
volved  in  the development  of  these
guidelines, a new paragraph was added
to § 124.31 to require the compilation of
draft determinations and conditions into
a draft permit. Such draft permit is to be
made available to the public for inspec-
tion and copying.
  4. Comments received indicated dis-
agreement between citizens and States
as to the proper length of the period for
public comment following public notice.
It was decided not to require the exten-
sion of the period  for  public comment
beyond 30 days but to allow the Direc-
tor to extend such period where, in his
discretion, he finds such extension is de-
sirable.  See  §124.32(b). To save  time,
however, citizens  may now be placed on
a  mailing list to receive copies of fact
sheets without the necessity of request-
ing such fact sheets following public no-
tice. In those cases where fact sheets are
prepared, the fact sheet can be sent  at
the  same  time public  notice is mailed.
See $ 124.33(b).
   5. Comments   from  States   advised
against the requirement to prepare a fact
sheet for  every application for a permit.
Section 124.33 has been modified to  re-
quire the  preparation of fact sheets only
for those discharges which exceed 500,000
gallons on any day of the year. The prep-
aration and  distribution of fact sheets
is thus limited to the  larger and more
controversial discharges.  An  informal
survey  in  one of the EPA regions indi-
cates that approximately 35 percent of
the applications  received were for dis-
charges in excess of 500,000 gallons. The
Director  may,  of course,  prepare fact
sheets  for smaller  discharges.
   6. Many commenters pointed out  the
discrepancy  between § 124.35 regarding
the handling of confidential information
and EPA's regulations for  such data, 40
CFR Part 2. Section 124.35(b) has been
modified  to require the Director to pro-
tect  information (other  than  effluent
data)  shown to constitute trade secrets.
Where  the determination  of confiden-
tiality by  the Director  is with regard to
information  contained  in an  NPDES
form and the Regional Administrator
disagrees with such determination, pro-
cedures consonant  with 40 CFR Part 2
apply. See §  124.35(b).
   7. Comments from industry and from
environmental groups  pointed  out  the
need for  further clarification of public
hearing requirements.  Almost all such
suggestions have been  incorporated, in-
cluding a requirement,  submitted from
environmental groups, that the Director
is required to  hold a  hearing in every
case where there is significant public in-
terest (including, of course, the filing of
requests or petitions for such hearing).
Any instances of doubt should  be  re-
solved  in  favor of  holding the hearing.
See § 124.36.
   8. Much concern  has been expressed
over the  setting  of permit schedules of
compliance and  their  enforcement.  To
achieve some degree of uniformity and
to  assist  the preparation of compliance
schedule reports, the Director is now re-
quired, to the extent practicable,  to set
schedules  of compliance so that interim
and final  dates fall  due on the last day
of the  months of March, June, Septem-
-------
                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
 ber, and December. Four times a. year the
 Director  shall prepare  and transmit to
 the Regional Administrator a list of all
 instances  of noncompliance  with  the
 schedule  requirements in a permit. Such
 list shall be available to  the  public for
 inspection and copying.  See § 124.44.
   In cases where  good  and valid cause
  The  term "Administrator" means
 the Administrator  of the U S B^nviron-
 mental Protection Agency.
   (e) The  term "Regional Administra-
 tor"  means one of the  EPA Regional
 Administrators.
   (f)  The  term "Director" means  the
 chief administrative officer -of  a  State
 water pollution control agency or inter-
 state  agency. In the event responsibility
 for water pollution control and enforce-
 ment is divided among two or more State
 or interstate agencies,  the term  "Direc-
 tor" means  the administrative officer au-
 thorized to  perform the particular pro-
 cedure to which reference is made.
   (g) The term "National Pollutant Dis-
charge  Elimination System  (NPDES)"
means the national  system for the issu-
ance of permits under section 402 of the
Act and includes any State or interstate
program which has been approved by
the Administrator, in  whole or in part,
pursuant to section  402 of the Act.
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 247—FRIDAY, DECEMBER  22, 1972
-------
 28IJ92
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
     The term  "NPDES permit" means
any  permit  or equivalent document or
requirements issued by the Administra-
tor, or, where appropriate, by the Direc-
tor, after enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendments of 1972,
to regulate  the  discharge of pollutants
pursuant  to section 402 of the Act.
    The term "NPDES form" means
any issued NPDES permit and any  uni-
form  national  form developed  for  use
in the NPDES and prescribed in regula-
tions promulgated by the Administrator,
including the Refuse Act application, the
NPDES application and the NPDES re-
porting forms.
   (D  The term "Refuse Act application"
means the application for a permit under
the Refuse Act.
   im>  The  term  "Refuse Act permit"
means any permit issued under the Ref-
use Act.
     or 303'c) of
the Act.
   (q)  The   term  "applicable  effluent
standards and  limitations" means  all
State and Federal effluent standards and
limitations to which a discharge is sub-
ject under the  Act, including, but  not
limited to, effluent limitations, standards
of performance, toxic  effluent standards
and  prohibitions,  and   pretreatment
standards.
  (Comment.  The House  committee  print
states: "The  committee  points out,  as it
did In the discussion of section 401, that the
term 'applicable' used In section 402 has two
meanings.  It  means  that the  requirement
which the term 'applicable' refers to must be
pertinent and apply to the activity and the
requirement must be In existence by having
been promulgated or Implemented.")

   The term "minor discharge" means
any discharge which (1) has a total vol-
ume of less than 50,000 gallons on every
day of the year, (2) does not affect the
waters of any other State, and (3) is not
identified by the Director, the Regional
Administrator, or by the Administrator
in  regulations issued pursuant to sec-
tion 307fa)  of the Act as a discharge
which is not a minor discharge.  If there
is more than one discharge from a facil-
ity  and the sum of the volumes of all dis-
charges from the facility exceeds 50,000
gallons on any day  of the year,  then no
discharge from the facility is a "minor
discharge" as defined herein.
§124.2  Scope and purpose.
  (a) This  part establishes  guidelines
specifying procedural and other elements
which must be present in a  State or
interstate program  in  order  to obtain
approval of  the Administrator pursuant
to section 402 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as  amended,  86  Stat.
816, 33 U.S.C.	
  (b) A submitted  State  or interstate
program which conforms to the guide-
lines  of this part and which  meets the
requirements  of section 402 of  the Act
shall  be approved by the Administrator.
Upon approval,  the Administrator  shall
suspend his issuance  of NPDES permits
as to those point sources subject to such
approved program.
  (c) Any State program which obtains
the approval of the Administrator pursu-
ant to section 402 of  the Act shall at all
times be in  accordance with section 402
and the guidelines contained in this part.
§ 124.3  Form  of   authority cited  by
     Attorney  General.
  All authorities cited  by  the State at-
torney general as authority adequate to
meet  the requirements of section 402(b)
of the Act (a) shall  be in the  form of
lawfully promulgated State statutes and
regulations and  (b)  shall be in full force
and effect at the time the Attorney Gen-
eral signs the Attorney General's state-
ment.

§ 124.4  Authority  for  State  program
     procedure*.

  (a) All procedures which  the  State
proposes to  establish and administer to
conform with the requirements of  this
part shall be  set forth  in State statutes
or  lawfully  promulgated State regula-
tions. Such State statutes and regula-
tions  shall be in full  force and effect at
the time the Governor submits the State
program to  the Regional Administrator.
   The State has  submitted  a full
and  complete description of procedures
to administer its program in conform-
ance with the requirements of this part;
and
  (2) The State has  made  a   written
commitment  to  the Administrator to
promulgate regulations which meet the
requirements of paragraph  fa)  of this
section by January  1,1974.

Subpart B—Prohibition  of  Discharges
             of Pollutants

§ 124.10  Prohibition of  discharges into
     State waters.

  Any State  or interstate program par-
ticipating in the NPDES must  have a
statute  or  regulation,  enforceable in
State courts, which prohibits discharges
of pollutants by any person, except as au-
thorized pursuant to an NPDES permit.

  (Comment). For the purposes of this sub-
part,  a State  or  Interstate program  shall
qualify for participation In  the NPDES If it
prohibits discharges of pollutants to the same
extent such discharges are prohibited In sec-
tion 301 (a)  of the Act. It is recognized that
some  State or Interstate programs  presently
exempt or exclude certain categories, types,
or sizes of point sources from the general pro-
hibition  of the unauthorized  discharge  of
pollutants or  from the requirement of ob-
taining a permit. Other States have in effect
"grandfather" clauses which either  exempt
discharges already In  existence or provide for
automatic Issuance of a  permit to existing
dischargers. Exceptions to the general prohi-
bition  cannot  be  approved. Depending on
their scope and nature, any such exceptions
will either (1)  constitute grounds  for with-
holding approval of  the entire submitted
program  until such  time as the  State  or
interstate agency revises or  modifies Its pro-
gram to conform to this subpart, or  (2) con-
stitute categories,  types,  or sizes  of point
sources for which the Administrator will riot
suspend the Issuance of NPDES permits. In
the latter case, the Administrator will Issue
NPDES permits for those point sources not
subject to the State or interstate  agency's
authority.)

   Subpart C—Acquisition  of  Data

§ 124.21  Application for NPDKS permit.

  Procedures of any State or interstate
agency participating in the NPDES shall
insure that every applicant for an NPDES
permit complies with NPDES filing re-
quirements. Such  procedures and re-
quirements shall include  the following:
  fa) A requirement  that  any person
discharging pollutants must:
  (1) Have filed a  complete Refuse Act
application; or,
  (2) File a complete NPDES  applica-
tion  no later than  60 days following re-
ceipt by the applicant of notice from the
Director that the applicant's previously
filed Refuse Act application is so deficient
as not  to  have satisfied  the filing re-
quirements; or,
  (3) File a complete NPDES application
within a stated period, not to exceed any
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 247—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1972
-------
                                               RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                          28393
 applicable  periods  specified  in Federal
 regulations for persons filing under the
 NPDES.
   (Comment. Federal filing requirements for
 the  NPDES  include the timely filing of a
 properly completed Refuse Act or NPDES ap-
 plication form. State and interstate agencies
 may specify, where necessary, additional fil-
 ing requirements such as the submission of
 engineering reports, plans, and specifications
 for present or proposed treatment or control
 of discharges of pollutants. While duplica-
 tion should  be avoided, the Administrator
 recognizes that  the NPDES application form
 may not by  itself satisfy the needs of every
 participating program.)

   (b)  A  requirement that  any  person
 wishing to commence discharges of pol-
 lutants  after  the  applicable period in
 paragraph  (a) (3) of this section, must
 file a complete NPDES application either
 < 11 no less  than 180 days in  advance of
 the date on which it is desired to com-
 mence the discharge of pollutants, or (2)
 in  sufficient  time  prior  to  the  com-
 mencement of the discharge of pollutants
 to insure compliance with the require-
 ments of section 306 of the Act, or with
 any applicable zoning or siting require-
 ments  established pursuant  to section
 208(b)(2)(C)  of  the  Act,  and  any
 other applicable water quality standards
 and applicable  effluent  standards and
 limitations.
   (Comment. The purpose of this require-
 ment is to Insure that the Director has suf-
 ficient  time  to examine applications  from
 new sources  of  discharge of pollutants and
 to apply standards of performance without
 unnecessarily delaying scheduled startup.
 The sooner the Director can specify require-
 ments  for new sources, the more easily the
 applicant  can  modify his plans, if neces-
 sary, without disruption  and waste. Those
 State or Interstate agencies which begin re-
 view at the planning stages of a new project
 are in  the best position  to Insure  orderly
 compliance with new source standards.)

 (c) Procedures which (1)  enable  the
 Director to require the submission of ad-
 ditional information after a  Refuse Act
 or an NPDES application has been filed,
 and (2) insure that, if  a Refuse Act or
 NPDES  application is  incomplete  or
 otherwise deficient, processing of the ap-
 plication  shall  not be  completed until
 such time as the applicant has supplied
 the  missing information or otherwise
corrected the deficiency.
  (Comment. The Director may flnd he needs
 information  other than that initially filed
by the  applicant in order  to make a permit
decision.  The Director should not hesitate
to  go back to the applicant for further in-
 formation. In some cases, nothing less than
an on-slte inspection  of an applicant's pol-
lution control technology and practices will
suffice.
 No NPDES permit should be  Issued until
the applicant has fully complied with the
filing requirements specified )n this .subpart
If  an applicant fails or refuses to  correct
deficiencies In his NPDES application form,
the Director should take timely enforcement
 action.)

§ 124.22  Keeeipt  anil  usr  of  Federal
     data.

  Each State or interstate agency par-
ticipating in  the NPDES shall receive
any  relevant data collected by the Re-
 gional   Administrator  prior  to  such
 agency's participation in the NPDES in
 such manner as the Director and the Re-
 gional  Administrator  shall  agree. Any
 agreement  between the State  or inter-
 state agency and the Regional  Adminis-
 trator  shall  provide   for  at least the
 following:
   (a)  Prompt transmittal  to the Direc-
 tor from the Regional Administrator of
 copies  of any Refuse Act applications,
 NPDES applications,  or other relevant
 data collected by the Regional  Adminis-
 trator  prior to  the State  or interstate
 agency's participation in  the  NPDES;
 and
   (b)  A procedure to insure that the Di-
 rector  will  not issue an  NPDES permit
 on the basis of any Refuse Act or NPDES
 application received from  the  Regional
 Administrator which  the Regional Ad-
 ministrator has  identified as incomplete
 or otherwise deficient until the Director
 receives information sufficient to correct
 the deficiency to the satisfaction of the
 Regional Administrator.
   (Comment. The two purposes of this sec-
 tion are: (1) To provide for  the transfer of
 data bearing on NPDES permit determina-
 tions from the Federal Government to the
 participating State or Interstate agencies, and
 (2) to  Insure  that  any deficiencies  in the
 transferred NPDES forms will  be corrected
 prior to Issuance of an NPDES permit. The
 "agreement" mechanism allows flexibility in
 achieving both  purposes. Time  and  manner
 of transfer can be worked out by each par-
 ticipating agency and the Regional Adminis-
 trator. If agreed upon, deficient applications
 could either be retained by the Regional Ad-
 ministrator until completed or be transferred
 with the satisfactory applications. If the
 Director prefers to receive and correct de-
 ficient applications, the agreement  could pro-
 vide for the forwarding to the Regional Ad-
 ministrator of the information  necessary to
 correct the deficiency.)

 § 124.23 Transmission of  data  to Re-
     gional Administrator.

   Each  State  or interstate agency par-
 ticipating in the NPDES shall  transmit
 to the Regional  Administrator  copies of
 NPDES forms received by the State or
 interstate agency in such manner as the
 Director and Regional  Administrator
 shall agree. Any agreement between the
 State or interstate agency and the Re-
 gional Administrator shall provide for at
 least the following:
   (a) Prompt transmittal  to  the  Re-
 gional Administrator of a complete copy
 of any PDES form received by  the State
or interstate agency;
   (b) Procedures for  the transmittal to
 the national  data bank  of a  complete
 copy, or relevant portions thereof, of any
 appropriate NPDES form received by the
 State or interstate agency;
    An opportunity  for  the  Regional
Administrator  to object in writing to de-
ficiencies in any NPDES application or
reporting form, received by him  and to
have such  deficiency corrected  r  the
Regional Administrator's  objection re-
lates to  an NPDES application, the Di-
rector shall send the Regional  Adminis-
trator any information necessary to cor-
rect the deficiency and  shall, if the Re-
gional  Administrator  so  requests,  not
issue the NPDES permit until he receives
notice from the Regional Administrator
that the deficiency has been corrected
   'e>  An opportunity  for the  Regional
Administrator to identify any  discharge
which has  a  total volume of  less than
50,000 gallons on every day  of the year
as a discharge which is  not a minor dis-
charge. If the Regional  Administrator so
identifies a discharge and notifies the
Director, the Director shall  require the
applicant for such discharge to submit
additional NPDES application  forms or
any other information  requested by the
Regional Administrator  in his notifica-
tion to the Director.
   if)  Procedures for  the transmittal,  if
requested by the Regional Administrator,
of copies of notice received  by the Di-
rector from  publicly owned  treatment
works pursuant to  §§ 124.45   In the case  of  corporations, by a
principal executive officer of  at least the
level of  vice  president,  or his  duly au-
thorized  representative, if such  repre-
sentative is responsible  for  the  overall
operation of the facility from which the
discharge described in the NPDES form
originates.
   
-------
28394

late and prepare tentative staff determi-
nations with respect to a  Refuse Act or
NPDES application in advance of public
notice of the proposed issuance or denial
of an NPDES permit. Such tentative de-
terminations shall include at least the
following:
   (1) A proposed determination to issue
or deny an  NPDES permit for the dis-
charge described in the  Refuse Act or
NPDES application; and,
   (2) If the determination proposed in
paragraph (a) of this section is to issue
the NPDES  permit, the following addi-
tional tentative  determinations:
   d)  Proposed effluent limitations, iden-
tified pursuant to §§ 124.42  and 124.43,
for  those  pollutants  proposed  to  be
limited;
   (ii) A  proposed schedule of compli-
ance, including  interim  dates  and re-
quirements,  for meeting  the proposed
effluent limitations, identified pursuant
to § 124.44; and
   Uii) A brief description of any other
proposed special conditions (other than
those required in I 124.45)  which will
have  a significant impact upon the dis-
charge described in the  NPDES  appli-
cation.
   (b) The Director shall organize the
tentative determinations prepared pur-
suant to  paragraph (a)  of this section
into a draft  NPDES permit for the Ref-
use Act of NPDES application.

§ 124.32   Public nolii-e.
   (a)  Public notice of  every complete
application  for an NPDES permit shall
be circulated in a manner designed to
inform interested and potentially inter-
ested persons of the proposed discharge
and of the proposed determination to is-
sue or deny an NPDES  permit  for the
proposed discharge. Procedures  for the
circulation of public notice shall include
at least the following:
   (1) Notice shall be circulated  within
the geographical areas of the proposed
discharge; such circulation may include
any or all  of the following:
   (i) Posting in the post office and pub-
lic places of the municipality nearest the
premises of  the applicant in which the
effluent source is located;
     Posting near the  entrance to the
applicant's  premises  and  in  nearby
places; and
   (iii) Publishing  in local  newspapers
and  periodicals, or, if appropriate,  in a
daily newspaper of general  circulation;
   (2) Notice shall be mailed to any per-
son or group upon request; and
   (3) The Director shall  add the name
of any person or group upon request to
a mailing list to receive copies of notices
for all NPDES  applications  within  the
State or within a certain geographical
area.
   (b)  The Director shall provide  a pe-
riod  of noteless  than thirty  (30) days
following  the date of the public notice
during  which  time interested  persons
may  submit their written views on the
tentative  determinations with  respect
to the NPDES  application. All written
comments submitted  during  the  30-day
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS

comment period shall be retained by the
Director and  considered in the formula-
tion of his  final  determinations  with
respect to the NPDES application. The
period for comment may be extended at
the discretion of the Director.
   The contents  of public notice of
applications  for NPDES  permits  shall
include at least the  following 
-------
                                              RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        28395
   (1)  The Director and the District En-
 gineer for each Corps ot Engineers dis-
 trict within the State or interested area
 may arrange for (it notice to the District
 Engineer of minor discharges, (11) waiver
 by the District  Engineer  of his right to
 receive   fact  sheets  with  respect  to
 classes, types, and sizes within any cate-
 gory of  point sources and with respect
 to  discharges  to particular navigable
 waters  or  parts thereof  and  (ill)  any
 procedures for the transmission of forms,
 period for comment by the District En-
 gineer (e.g., 30 days), and for objections
 of the District Engineer.
   (2) A copy of any written agreement
 between the Director and a District En-
 gineer shall  be forwarded to  the Re-
 gional Administrator and shall be made
 available to the public for inspection and
 copying.
   (d) A procedure for mailing copies of
 public notice  (or upon specific request,
 copies of fact sheets)  for application for
 NPDES  permits to any other Federal,
 State, or local agency, or any affected
 country, upon  request, and providing
 such agencies an opportunity to respond,
 comment, or  request a public hearing
 pursuant to § 124.36. Such agencies shall
 include at least the following:
  (1) The  agency  responsible  for  the
 preparation of an  approved plan  pur-
 suant to section 208(b) of the Act; and
  (2> The  State or  interstate agency
 responsible for the preparation of a plan
 pursuant to  an  approved  continuous
 planning process under section 303 (e)
 of the Act, unless such agency is under
 the supervision of the Director.
  (e) Procedures  for  notice  to  and
 coordination   with  appropriate  public
 health agencies for the purpose of assist-
 ing  the  applicant  in  coordinating  the
 applicable requirements of the Act with
 any  applicable  requirements  of  such
 public health agencies.
 § 124.35   Public access to information.
  (a) Any State  or  interstate agency
 participating in  the NPDES shall insure
 that any NPDES  forms (including the
 draft NPDES permit prepared pursuant
 to § 124.3Kb)) or any  public comment
 upon those forms pursuant to § 124.32(b)
 shall be  available  to  the  public for in-
 spection  and copying. The Director, in
 his discretion, may also make available to
 the  public  any  other records, reports,
 plans, or information obtained by  the
State or interstate agency pursuant to
 its participation  in the NPDES.
  (b) The Director shall protect any in-
 formation  (other  than effluent  data)
 contained  in such  NPDES form, or
other records, reports, or plans as confi-
dential upon a showing by any person
that such information  if made public
 would divulge methods  of processes en-
titled to protection as  trade secrets of
such person.  If, however, the informa-
 tion  being considered  for confidential
 treatment is contained in  an NPDES
form, the Director shall  forward  such
information to the Regional Administra-
 tor for  his  concurrence in any deter-
 mination of confidentiality. If  the Re-
 gional  Administrator  does  not   agree
 **»««•• some or all of the information  being
 considered for  confidential  treatment
 merits such protection, he shall request
 advice from the Office of General Coun-
 sel, stating the reasons for his disagree-
 ment with the determination of the Di-
 rector. The Regional Administrator shall
 simultaneously provide  a copy of such
 request to the  person  claiming trade
 secrecy. The General  Counsel shall de-
 termine  whether  the  information  in
 question   would,  if   revealed,  divulge
 methods of processes entitled to protec-
 tion  as trade  secrets. In making such
 determinations,  he shall consider  any
 additional information submitted to the
 Office of General Counsel within 30 days
 of  receipt of the request from the Re-
 gional  Administrator.  If  the  General
 Counsel determines that the informa-
 tion being considered does  not contain
 trade secrets, he  shall so advise the Re-
 gional  Administrator  and  shall  notify
 the person claiming  trade secrecy  of
 such  determination by certified mail. No
 sooner than 30 days following the mail-
 ing of such notice, the Regional Admin-
 istrator shall communicate to the Direc-
 tor his decision  not to concur in the
 withholding of  such information, and the
 Director and the Regional Administrator
 shall  then make  available to the public,
 upon   request,  that information deter-
 mined not to constitute trade secrets.
  (c)   Any information accorded confi-
 dential status,  whether or not contained
 in  an NPDES  form, shall be disclosed,
 upon  request,  to the  Regional Admin-
istrator, or his authorized representative,
 who shall  maintain the disclosed infor-
 mation as confidential.
  (d)  The Director shall provide facili-
 ties for the inspection  of  information
 relating to NPDES forms and shall in-
 sure that State employees honor requests
 for such inspection  promptly  without
 undue requirements or restrictions. The
 Director shall  either (1) insure that  a
 machine or device for the  copying  of
 papers and documents is available for
 a reasonable fee, or (2)  otherwise pro-
 vide for or coordinate with copying fa-
 cilities or services such that requests for
 copies of nonconfldential documents may
 be honored promptly.
  (Comment. Although not required herein,
 the Director Is encouraged to  maintain fa-
 cilities for  Inspection and  copying in more
 than one location within the State or Inter-
state area in order  to Increase citizen access
 to NPDES forms  and activities.)

§124.36   Public hearings.
  The Director shall provide  an oppor-
tunity for the applicant, any  affected
 State, any affected interstate agency,
any affected country, the Regional Ad-
ministrator, or any interested agency,
person, or group of persons to request or
petition for a public hearing  with respect
to  NPDES applications. Any  such re-
quest  or petition for public hearing shall
be  filed within the 30-day  period pre-
scribed in  i 124.32(b)  and shall indicate
the interest of  the party filing such re-
quest  and  the reasons  why a hearing is
warranted. The  Director shall  hold  a
hearing if there  is a  significant public
interest (including the filing of requests
or petitions for such hearing) in holding
 such a hearing. Instances of doubt should
 be resolved in favor of holding the hear-
 ing. Any hearing  brought pursuant to
 this subsection shall be held in the geo-
 graphical area of the proposed discharge
 or other appropriate area, in the discre-
 tion of the Director, and may as appro-
 priate, consider related groups of permit
 applications.

 §  124.37   Public notice of public bear-
     ings.
   (a) Public notice of any hearing held
 pursuant to  § 124.36 above shall be  cir-
 culated  at least as widely as was  the
 notice of the NPDES application. Proce-
 dures for the circulation of public notice
 for hearings held under § 124.36 shall in-
 clude at least the following:
   (1) Notice shall be published in at least
 one  newspaper of general  circulation
 within  the  geographical  area  of  the
 discharge;
   (2) Notice shall be sent to all persons
 and Government agencies which received
 a  copy of the notice or the fact sheet for
 the  NPDES application;
   '3) Notice shall be mailed to any per-
 son  or group upon  request; and
   (4) Notice shall be effected pursuant to
 subparagraphs (1)  and <3) of this para-
 graph at least thirty 130) days in advance
 of the hearing.
   (b)  The contents of public notice of
 any hearing held  pursuant to  5 124.36
 shall include at least the following  (see
 Appendix  C  to this part  for a sample
 hearing) notice which meets the require-
 ments of this section:
   '!) Name, address, and phone number
 of agency holding the public hearing;
   (2) Name  and address  of each appli-
 cant whose application will be considered
 at the hearing;
   (3) Name of waterway  to which each
 discharge is made and a short description
 of the location of each discharge on the
 waterway;
   (4) A brief reference to the  public  no-
 tice  issued for each NPDES application,
 including identification number and date
 of issuance;
   <5)  Information regarding the time
 and  location for the hearing;
   (6) The purpose  of the hearing;
   (7) A  concise statement of  the issues
 raised by  the persons  requesting  the
 hearing;
   (8)  Address and phone number of
 premises  at  which interested  persons
 may obtain further information, request
 a copy of each draft NPDES permit pre-
 pared pursuant to S 124.31'b)  above, re-
 quest a copy of each fact sheet prepared
 pursuant to  (S 124.33,  and inspect and
 copy NPDES  forms and  related docu-
 ments; and,
   (9) A brief description of the nature of
 the hearing, including the rules and pro-
 cedures to  be followed.

Subpart E—Terms and Conditions of
           NPDES Permits

 § 124.41   Prohibited discharge^.
   Any State or interstate agency partici-
 pating in the NPDES shall insure that no
 permit shall be issued authorizing any of
 the following discharges:
                              FIDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  37, NO. 247—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 197)
-------
28396
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (a) The discharge of any radiological,
chemical, or biological warfare agent or
high-level radioactive waste into navi-
gable waters;
  (b) Any discharge which the Secretary
of the Army acting through the chief of
engineers finds would substantially im-
pair anchorage and navigation;
  (c) Any discharge  to  which  the Re-
gional Administrator has  objected  in
writing pursuant to any right to object
provided  the  Administrator in section
402(d) of the  Act; and
  (d) Any discharge from a point source
which is in conflict with a plan or amend-
ment thereto approved pursuant to sec-
tion 208(b) of the Act.
§ 124.42   Application of  rflflurnt  stand-
     ards  and  limitations,  water quality
     standard!), and othrr  requirements.
  (a) Procedures for  any State or inter-
state  program   participating   in   the
NPDES must insure that the terms and
conditions of each issued NPDES permit
apply and insure compliance with all of
the following,  whenever  applicable:
  (1) Effluent  limitations under  sections
301 and 302 of the Act;
  (2) Standards of performance for new
sources under  section 306 of the Act;
  (3) Effluent standards,  effluent prohi-
bitions, and pretreatment standards un-
der section 307 of the Act;
  (4) Any  more  stringent  limitation,
including those , the per-
mittee shall be required to take specific
steps to  achieve  compliance  with the
following:
  (1)  In  accordance with any legally
applicable schedule  of  compliance con-
tained in:
  (i)  Applicable  effluent standards  and
limitations;
  (ii)  If more stringent, water  quality
standards;  or,
  (hi) If more stringent, legally appli-
cable requirements listed in § 124.42 (d)
and (e); or,
  (2) In the absence of any legally ap-
plicable schedule of compliance,  in the
shortest, reasonable period of time, such
period to be consistent with  the  guide-
lines and requirements of the Act.
  (b)  In any case where the period of
time  for compliance specified in para-
graph  (a)  of this  section  exceeds  9
months, a schedule of compliance shall be
specified in the  permit which will  set
forth interim requirements and the dates
for their achievement; in no event shall
more  than 9  months elapse between
interim dates. If the time necessary for
completion  of  the interim requirement
(such as the construction of a treatment
facility) is  more than 9 months and is
not readily divided into stages for com-
pletion, interim dates shall be specified
for the submission of reports of progress
towards completion of the interim  re-
quirement.  For  each  NPDES   permit
schedule of compliance, interim dates
and the final date for compliance shall,
to the extent practicable, fall on the last
day of the months of March,  June, Sep-
tember, and December.
  (Comment. Certain Interim requirements
such as the submission of preliminary or final
plans often require less than 9 months and
thus a shorter Interval should be specified.
Other requirements such as the construction
of treatment facilities may require several
years for completion and may  not readily
subdivide Into 9-month Intervals. Long-term
interim requirements should nonetheless be
subdivided Into Intervals not longer than  9
months at which the permittee Is required
to report his progress to the Director pursu-
ant to § 124 44 (c)).

  (c) Either before or up to fourteen (14)
days following each interim date and the
final  date  of  compliance the  permittee
shall provide the Director with  written
notice of the permittee's compliance or
noncompliance with the interim  or final
requirement.
  (d)  On the last day of the months of
February, May, August, and November
the Director shall transmit to the Re-
gional Administrator a list  of  all  in-
stances, as of 30 days prior to the date
of such report, of failure or refusal of
a permittee to comply with an interim or
final requirement or to notify the Direc-
tor of compliance or noncompliance with
each interim or final requirement  (as re-
quired pursuant to paragraph (b)  of this
section. Such list shall  be available to
the public for inspection and copying and
shall contain at least the following infor-
mation with respect to each instance of
noncompliance:
  (1)  Name and  address of  each non-
complying permittee;
  (2)  A short description  of each in-
stance of noncompliance (e.g., failure to
submit preliminary plans, 2 week delay
in  commencement  of  construction of
treatment facility; failure to notify Di-
rector of compliance  with interim re-
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 37, NO. 247—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1972
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                                               28397
 quirement to complete construction by
 June 30th, etc.);
   (3) A short description of any actions
 or proposed actions by the permittee or
 the Director to comply or enforce compli-
 ance with the interim  or final require-
 ment; and
   (4) Any details which tend to explain
 or mitigate an instance of noncompliance
 with an interim or final requirement (e.g.,
 construction delayed due to materials
 shortage, plan approval delayed by ob-
 jections from State  Pish and Wildlife
 Agency.
   (e) If a permittee fails or refuses to
 comply with an interim or final require-
 ment in an NPDES permit such noncom-
 pliance shall constitute a violation  of the
 permit for which the  Director may, pur-
 suant  to  Subpart  H  of  this  part,
 modify, suspend or revoke the permit or
 take direct enforcement action.
 § 124.45  Other terms and conditions of
     issued NPDES permits.
  In addition to the  requirements  of
 55 124.42, 124.43, and 124.44, procedures
 of any State or interstate agency partici-
 pating in the NPDES must insure that
 the terms and conditions of each issued
 NPDES permit provide  for and  insure
 the following:
  (a) That all discharges authorized by
 the  NPDES permit shall be  consistent
 with the terms and conditions of the per-
 mit; that facility expansions, production
 increases, or process modifications which
 result in new or increased discharges of
 pollutants must  be reported by submis-
 sion of a new NPDES application  or, if
 such discharge does not violate effluent
 limitations specified in  the NPDES per-
 mit, by  submission to  the Director of
 notice of such  new  or increased dis-
 charges of pollutants; that the discharge
 of any  pollutant more frequently than
 or at a level  in excess of that identified
 and authorized by the permit  shall con-
 stitute a violation of the terms and con-
 ditions of the permit;
  (b) That the permit may be modified,
 suspended, or revoked  in whole  or  in
 part during its term for cause including,
 but not limited to,  the  following:
  (1) Violation of  any terms or condi-
 tions of the permit;
  (2) Obtaining a  permit by  misrepre-
 sentation or failure to disclose fully all
 relevant facts; and,
  <3> A change  in any condition that
 requires either a temporary or permanent
 reduction or elimination of the permitted
 discharge;
  (c) That the permittee shall permit the
 Director or his authorized representative,
 upon the presentation of his credentials:
  (1) To enter upon permittee's premises
 in which an effluent source is located or
 in which any records  are required  to be
 kept under terms and conditions of the
 permit;
  (2) To have access to and copy any
 records  required to be kept under  terms
 and  conditions of the permit;
  (3) To inspect any monitoring equip-
 ment or method required in the permit;
or,
  (4)  To  sample  any  discharge  of
pollutants.
  (d) That, if the permit is for a dis-
charge from a publicly owned treatment
works, the permittee shall provide notice
to the Director of the following:
  (1) Any new introduction of pollutants
into such treatment works from a source
which would be  a new source as defined
in section 306 of the Act if such source
were discharging  pollutants;
  (2) Except  as  to such categories and
classes  of point sources or discharges
specified by the Director, any new intro-
duction  of  pollutants into  such treat-
ment works from a source which would
be subject to  section 301 of the Act if
such source wererdischarging pollutants;
and,
  (3) Any substantial change in volume
or character of  pollutants being intro-
duced into  such  treatment works by a
source introducing pollutants into such
works at the  time  of  issuance of  the
permit.
Such notice shall  include  information
on  (i) the  quality and quantity of ef-
fluent to be introduced into such treat-
ment works and  (ii) any anticipated im-
pact of such change in the quantity or
quality of effluent to be discharged from
such publicly owned treatment works.
  (e) That, if the permit is for a dis-
charge from a publicly owned treatment
works, the permittee shall  require any
industrial user of such treatment works
to comply with the requirements of sec-
tions 204(b), 307, and 308 of the Act. As
a means of insuring such compliance, the
permittee shall require of each industrial
user subject to the requirements of sec-
tion 307 of the Act and shall forward a
copy to the Director periodic notice (over
intervals  not  to  exceed  9 months)
of progress towards full compliance with
section 307  requirements.
  (f) That  the  permittee at all times
shall maintain in good working order and
operate as efficiently as possible any fa-
cilities or systems of control installed by
the permittee to achieve compliance with
the terms and conditions of the permit.
  (g) That if a toxic effluent standard or
prohibition  (including any  schedule  of
compliance  specified in  such  effluent
standard  or prohibition)  is established
under section  307(a) of the Act for a
toxic pollutant  which is present in the
permittee's discharge and such standard
or prohibition is more stringent than any
limitation upon  such  pollutant in the
NPDES permit, the Director shall revise
or modify the permit in accordance with
the toxic effluent standard or prohibition
and so notify the permittee.
§ 124.46  Transmission  to Regional Ad-
     ministrator   of   proposed   'NPDFS
     permits.
  Any State or  interstate agency par-
ticipating in the NPDES shall transmit
to the Regional  Administrator copies of
NPDES permits  proposed  to be  issued
by such  agency  in such manner as the
Director  and  Regional Administrator
shall agree upon. Any agreement between
the  State or interstate  agency  and the
Regional Administrator shall provide for
at least the following:
   (a)  Except as  waived  pursuant  to
paragraph (d) of this section, the trans-
mission by the Director of any and  all
terms, conditions, requirements, or docu-
ments which are a part of the proposed
permit or which  affect the authoriza-
tion by the proposed permit of the dis-
charge of pollutants;
   (b)  A period of time (up to 90  days)
in  which the  Regional Administrator,
pursuant to any right to object provided
in  section 402(d>(2)  of the Act, may
comment upon,  object to,  or make rec-
ommendations with respect to the pro-
posed permit;
   (o  Procedures  for  State acceptance
or  rejection of  a written objection  by
the Regional Administrator; and
   (d)  Any  written waiver by the Re-
gional  Administrator  of his  rights  to
receive,  review,  object to,  or  comment
upon  proposed  NPDES  permits   for
classes, types, or sizes within any cate-
gory of point sources.

§ 124.47  Transmission to Regional Ad-
     ministrator of issued NI'DKS permits.
  Each State or interstate agency par-
ticipating in the NPDES shall transmit
to  the Regional Administrator a  copy
of every issued NPDES permit, immedi-
ately following issuance, along with any
and all terms, conditions,  requirements,
or  documents which are a part of such
permit or which affect the  authorization
by  the  permit  of the  discharge  of
pollutants.

Subpart F—Duration  and  Review  of
            NPDES Permits

§ 124.51  Duration  of  issued  NPDES
     permits.
  Any State or  interstate agency  par-
ticipating in the NPDES shall provide
that  each issued  NPDES  permit shall
have  a fixed term  not to exceed 5  years.
  (Comment. The term of an  NPDES permit
may extend beyond  the time  for compliance
specified pursuant to S 124.44. The time  for
compliance shall  be that dictated by  (1)
effluent standards and limitations, or (11) If
more stringent, water quality standards, or
(111) If more stringent, other legally applica-
ble  requirements  such as those listed  In
9124.42  (d)  and  (e).  The  term of  the
NPDES permit may extend beyond the final
deadline for compliance, except  that  the
term may not exceed 5  years.  Failure  to
comply with the  permit  schedule of com-
pliance, Including Interim and final require-
ments, as provided In 5124.44(e), Is a viola-
tion of the permit  for which the Director
may take Subpart H of this part enforcement
action.)

§ 124.52  Reissuance of NPDES permits.
  (a)  Any  State  or  interstate agency
participating in the NPDES shall main-
tain procedures for the review of appli-
cations for reissuance of NPDES permits.
Such review procedures shall require, and
the Director shall so  notify  the  per-
mittee,  that  any permittee who wishes
to continue to discharge after the ex-
piration date of his NPDES permit must
file for reissuance of his permit at least
180 days prior  to its  expiration. The
filing requirements for reissuance shall
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 247—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2J, 1972
-------
28398
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
be determined by the State or interstate
agency  and may range  from a simple
written  request  for  reissuance to sub-
mission of all NPDES and State or inter-
state forms.
    Any discharge  authorized by an
NPDES permit which  (1) is not a minor
discharge,  <2)  the Regional Adminis-
trator requests, in writing, be monitored,
or  (3)  contains  toxic  pollutants  for
which  an  effluent  standard has been
established by  the Administrator pur-
suant to section 307 (a) of the Act, shall
be monitored by the permittee for at least
the following:
  (i)  Flow (in  gallons per day) ; and,
  (11) All of the following pollutants:
  (o) Pollutants (either directly or in-
directly through the use of accepted cor-
relation coefficients or equivalent meas-
urements)  which are subject to reduc-
tion or elimination under the terms and
conditions  of the permit;
  (b) Pollutants  which  the  Director
finds, on the basis of information avail-
able to him, could have a significant im-
pact on the quality of navigable waters;
  (c) Pollutants specified by the Admin-
istrator, in regulations issued  pursuant
to the Act,  as subject to monitoring; and,
  (d) Any pollutants in addition to the
above which the Regional Administrator
requests, in writing, be monitored.
  (c) Each effluent flow or pollutant re-
quired to be monitored pursuant to para-
graph (b)  of this section shall  be moni-
tored at intervals sufficiently frequent to
yield data which reasonably character-
izes the nature of  the discharge of the
monitored effluent flow or pollutant. Var-
iable effluent flows and  pollutant levels
may be monitored at more frequent in-
tervals  than relatively constant effluent
flows and pollutant levels which may be
monitored at less  frequent intervals.
§ 124.62   Recording of  monitoring ac-
     tivities and results.
  Any State or interstate agency partici-
pating in  the  NPDES shall specify the
following recording requirements for any
NPDES permit which requires monitor-
ing of the authorized discharge :
   (a) The permittee shall maintain rec-
ords of  all information  resulting from
any monitoring activities required of him
in his NPDES permit;
   (b) Any records of monitoring activi-
ties and results shall include for all sam-
ples: (1) The date, exact place, and time
of sampling; (2) the dates analyses were
performed; (3) who performed the anal-
yses;  (4)   the analytical  techniques/
methods used; and, (5)  the results of
such analyses;  and,
   (c) The permittee shall be required to
retain for a minimum of 3 years any rec-
ords of monitoring activities and results
including all original strip chart record-
ing for continuous monitoring instru-
mentation and calibration and mainte-
nance records. This period of retention
shall be extended during the  course of
any unresolved litigation regarding the
discharge  of pollutants by the  permittee
or  when requested by the Director or
 Regional Administrator.
§ 124.63   Reporting of  monitoring  ro-
   Any State or interstate agency partici-
 pating  in  the  NPDES  shall  require
 periodic reporting (at a frequency of not
 less than once per year)  on the proper
 NPDES reporting form of  monitoring
 results obtained by a permittee pursuant
 to monitoring requirements in an NPDES
 permit. In addition to the NPDES report-
ing form, the Director in his discretion
may require submission of such  other
suits as he determines to be necessary.
information  regarding monitoring  re-
  (Comment. Reporting frequency, as with
monitoring frequency, depends upon the na-
ture and  Impact  of  the discharge. Annual
report submission Is sufficient for small cool-
Ing  water discharges. Discharges for  which
more frequent, even monthly, reporting Is
desirable  include variable discharges,  major,
Including  municipal, discharges,  and  dis-
charges for which new treatment or control
methods  are being applied.  Reporting  fre-
quency should correspond with administra-
tive capability to evaluate the reports as
they come In.)

§ 124.64  NPDES monitoring, recording,
     and reporting requirements.
  Any State or interstate agency partici-
pating in the NPDES shall adopt proce-
dures consistent with any national  moni-
toring, recording, and reporting require-
ments specified  by  the Administrator in
regulations issued  pursuant to  the  Act.

 Subpart H—Enforcement  Provisions

§ 124.71  Receipt  and  followup of no-
     tifications and reports.
   (a)  Any  State  or interstate agency
participating in  the  NPDES shall have
the procedures and the capability for the
receipt,  evaluation,  and   investigatory
followup for possible  enforcement or
remedial action of all notices and reports
required of permittees including, but not
limited to, the following:
   (1)  Reports from  industrial  users of
progress towards  compliance  with the
rquirements of  section 307  of  the  Act,
submitted pursuant to § 124.45(e);
   (2)  Notifications (or failure to notify)
from permittees of compliance or non-
 compliance  with  interim  requirements
specified in NPDES permit schedules of
 compliance pursuant  to § 124.44; and,
   (3)  Data  submitted  by permittees in
NPDES  reporting forms and other forms
 supplying monitoring data, pursuant to
 Subpart G of this part.
    (b) Any such reports or notifications
 received by  the Director pursuant to
 paragraph  (a) of this section shall: (1)
 Constitute  information available  to the
 Director and (2) if forwarded to the Re-
 gional  Administrator  pursuant to the
provisions of this  part shall constitute
information available to the Administra-
 tor within  the  meaning  of section 309
of  the Act.
   (c)  Any  State  or  interstate agency
participating in  the  NPDES shall have
 procedures  and  capability similar to
 paragraph  (a)  of this section for the
 receipt and evaluation  of notices  (relat-
ing to new introductions  or changes in
 the volume or character of pollutants
 introduced into publicly  owned  treat-
ment works)  submitted  by permittees
 which   are  publicly  owned treatment
works, pursuant to 5 124.45(d), for pos-
 sible violation of the terms and  condi-
 tions of the  NPDES permit. If the Di-
 rector determines  that any condition of
 the permit is violated, he shall notify the
 Regional  Administrator  and  consider
 taking action under section 402(h) of
 the Act  (relating  to proceedings to re-
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  37, NO. 247—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22,  1972
-------
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                         28399
 strict or  prohibit  the  introduction  of
 pollutants into treatment works).
 § 124.72   Modification,  sutponnion, und
     revocation of 1NPDES permits.
   (a) Any State or  interstate agency
 participating in the  NPDES shall provide
 procedures  which  insure  that,  after
 notice and opportunity for a public hear-
 ing, any permit issued under the NPDES
 can be modified, suspended, or revoked
 in whole  or in part during its term for
 cause including, but not limited to, the
 causes listed in  § 124.45 or for failure
 or refusal of the permittee to carry out
 the  requirements of § 124.45(c).
   
-------
 28400
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   (2) A list of  the  proposed costs and
expenses of establishing and administer-
ing the program described in the pro-
gram description, Including  (i)  wages
and salaries of the personnel listed in (1)
above, (ii) cost of administrative  sup-
port (such as office  space  and supplies,
computer time, vehicles, notice and hear-
ing procedures,  etc), and (iii) cost of
technical  support (such  as laboratory
space and supplies, vehicles, watercraft,
etc.). Such estimate of costs and expenses
shall include the cost  and  expense of
carrying out the procedures and require-
ments contained in this part;
   (3) A  description  of   the funding
available  to the Director to meet  the
costs and expenses  listed in  subpara-
graph  (2) of this paragraph  including
any restrictions or limitations upon such
funding; and
   (4) A list of  categories and sizes of
all point sources (e.g., major industrial,
minor industrial, minor municipal, ma-
jor feedlot, irrigation return flow, shop-
ping centers and subdivisions, etc.)  to
which the Director  proposes to issue
permits under the Act. For  each cate-
gory, the  following information shall be
given:
   (i)  Estimated   numbers   of   point
sources  within such  category which are
required to file for an  NPDES permit;
and
   (ii) Number and   percent  of  point
sources within each  category for which
the  State has already issued a  State
permit or equivalent document regulat-
ing the discharge of pollutants.
   (b) The Regional Administrator and
the Administrator shall review the in-
formation submitted  by  the Director
pursuant  to paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion in  order to determine whether the
Director has resources  available to him
which will enable him  to carry out the
program described in the program de-
scription  submitted pursuant to section
402(b) and the procedures contained in
this  part. Such a determination shall be
based upon an examination of criteria
which shall include the following:
   (1) Whether  there  are a  sufficient
number of employees to process NPDES
applications  and issue  NPDES permits
in sufficient time to  allow permittees
to attain  effluent limitations which will
achieve the July 1,  1977 goal specified
in section 301 (b)  of the  Act;
   (2) Whether the employees of the Di-
rector have sufficient expertise and ex-
perience for the  proper specification of
terms and conditions of NPDES permits
pursuant  to the requirements of  sub-
part E of this part;
   (3)  Whether the  employees of  the
Director  have  sufficient administrative
and  technical support and resources, in-
cluding funding, to  enable the Director
to carry out his duties under this part
and section 402 of the Act;
   (4) The number,  location, and kinds
of point sources which  constitute major
sources   of  discharge  of   pollutants
within the State or interstate area; and
   (5) The quality of navigable  waters
within the State or subject to the au-
thority of the interstate agency.
§ 124.92  Inspection  and  surveillance
    support for NPDES permits.
  Any State or interstate agency  par-
ticipating in the NPDES shall have the
funding, qualified  personnel, and other
resources necessary  to support  NPDES
permits with inspection and surveillance
procedures which  will determine, inde-
pendent of information supplied by ap-
plicants and permittees, compliance or
noncompliance with  applicable effluent
standards and limitations, water quality
standards, NPDES filing requirements,
and issued NPDES permits or terms or
conditions thereof. Such surveillance and
inspection support procedures shall in-
clude the following:
  (a) A supporting survey program with
sufficient capability to make systematic,
on-the-spot, comprehensive surveys of
all waters subject to the Director's au-
thority in order to identify and locate all
point sources subject to NPDES filing re-
quirements. Any compilation, index, or
inventory of point sources shall be made
available to the Regional  Administra-
tor or his authorized representative upon
request;
  (b)  A supporting  inspection program
for the periodic Inspection (to  be per-
formed not less than once every  year for
every discharge which is not a minor dis-
charge) of discharges of  pollutants from
point sources and facilities for the treat-
ment and  control  of such discharges of
pollutants. Such inspections shall deter-
mine compliance or noncompliance with
issued NPDES  permits or terms or con-
ditions thereof and, in particular, com-
pliance or noncompliance with specific
effluent limitations and schedules of com-
pliance in such NPDES permits;
  (c) A supporting surveillance program
with sufficient capability for the random
sampling and analysis of discharges for
the purpose of identifying occasional and
continuing  violations of permit condi-
tions or terms or conditions thereof and
the accuracy of information submitted
by permittees in NPDES  reporting forms
and other forms  supplying monitoring
data; and
  (d) A supporting program for the pur-
pose of following  up evidence  of viola-
tions of applicable effluent standards and
limitations and water quality standards,
NPDES filing  requirements, or issued
NPDES permits or terms or conditions
thereof indicated  by reports and noti-
fications evaluated pursuant to § 124.71
above or by survey, inspection, and sur-
veillance  activities in paragraphs  (a)-
(c) of this section. The  taking  of sam-
ples and other  Information  shall be per-
formed with sufficient care as to produce
evidence admissible  in  an  enforcement
proceeding or in court should the follow-
up indicate a violation of applicable ef-
fluent  standards  and  limitations  and
water quality standards or issued NPDES
permits or terms  or  conditions  thereof.
§ 124*93   Continuing planning  process.
  Any State or interstate program par-
ticipating in the NPDES must  have an
approved continuing planning  process
pursuant to section 303(e) of the Act and
must assure that its approved  planning
process is at  all times consistent  with
the Act.

§ 124.94  Agency Board membership.

  Each State  or interstate agency  par-
ticipating in the NPDES shall insure that
any  board  or  body  which  approves
NPDES permit applications or portions
thereof shall  not include as a member,
any person  who receives, or has during
the previous 2 years  received, a signifi-
cant  portion  of his  income directly or
indirectly from permit holders or appli-
cants for a permit.
  (a)  For the purposes of  this section,
the term "board or body" includes any
individual, including the Director, who
has or shares authority to approve permit
applications or portions thereof either in
the first instance or on appeal.
  (b)  For the purposes of  this section,
the term "significant portion of his  in-
come" shall  mean 10 percent of  gross
personal  income for a calendar  year,
except that it shall mean 50 percent of
gross personal income for a calendar year
if the recipient is  over  60 years of age
and is receiving such  portion pursuant to
retirement,  pension,  or similar arrange-
ment.
  (c)  For the purposes of  this section,
the term "permit holders or applicants
for a permit" shall not include any de-
partment or agency  of a State govern-
ment, such as a Department of Parks or
a Department of Fish and Wildlife.
   (d) For the purposes of this section,
the term "income" includes retirement
benefits, consultant fees, and stock divi-
dends.
  (e)  For the purposes of  this section,
income is not received "directly or  in-
directly  from permit holders or appli-
cants  for a permit"  where  it is derived
from  mutual-fund  payments, or  from
other diversified investments over which
the recipient  does not know the identity
of the primary sources of income.

 Subpart K—NPDES Application and
     Reporting Forms  [ Reserved!
  (Reserved Tor NPDES application and rs-
portlng forms,  along with guidelines and In-
structions for  their use  by applicants for
NPDES permits and  by State and interstate
programs participating  in the NPDES.)

               APPENDIX A
          SAMPLE PUBLIC NOTICE
DEPARTMENT  OP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  DIVISION OF WATER  QUALITY AND RESOURCES,
  1616 COURT HOUSE DRIVE, CAPITAL CITY, STATE
  (ZIP) 307-445-8822

 [Public Notice No. OPP-72-301;  Application
          No. CIY-400-60-3011

                       AUGUST 12, 1973.
NOTICE—APPLICATION FOR  NPDES PERMIT TO
       DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS
  Acme Paper  Products,  Inc.,  11345  North
Fremont Street, Cape Rockaway, State  (ZIP),
has applied for a Department of  Environ-
mental Protection permit to discharge  pollu-
tants Into State waters
  Applicant is  a manufacturer of bleached
grades of paper from kraft pulp Two  exist-
ing discharges  are described in the applica-
tion:  One of the utility waste water from
applicant's steam generating plant and  the
other of process wastes from the manufacture
of pulp and paper. Both discharges are pres-
                               FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 37, NO. 247—FRIDAY. DECEMBER 22,  1972
-------
                                                  RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                               28401
 ently  to Martin  Creek  one-half-mile  up-
 stream from Whitehall Bay.
   On  the  basis of preliminary staff review
 and application of lawful standards and reg-
 ulations, the Division of  Water Quality and
 Resources proposes to issue a permit to dis-
 charge subject to certain  effluent limitations
 and special conditions. These proposed deter-
 minations  are  tentative. Persons wishing to
 comment upon or object  to  the  proposed
 determinations are invited to submit same in
 writing to the above address no later than
 September 12,  1973.  All  comments  or  ob-
 jections  received prior to September 12, 1973,
 will be considered in the formulation of final
 determinations regarding the application. If
 no objections are received, the Director will
 issue his final determinations within 60 days
 of the date of this notice. A public hearing
 may be held  If response to  this notice Indi-
 cates significant public Interest.
  The application, proposed permit including
 proposed effluent limitations and special con-
 ditions, fact sheets, comments  received, and
 other information Is on file and may be In-
 spected and copied  in  Room 814, 1616 Court
 House Drive,  Capital  City,  State  (ZIP),  at
 any time between 8:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m.,
 Monday  through Friday.  Fact sheets  and
 further  Information  may  be  obtained  by
 writing to the above address or by calling the
 Office of Permit Processing at 307—445-8922.

                APPENDIX B
 SAMPLE FACT SHEET FOR MAILING TO INTERESTED
  AND  POTENTIALLY  INTERESTED  PERSONS AND
  GOVERNMENT  AGENCIES

 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

 DIVISION  OF WATER  QUALITY AND RESOURCES,
  1616 COURT HOUSE DRIVE, CAPITAL CITY, STATE
   (ZIP) 307-446-8922

 (Public Notice No.  OPP-72-301; Application
           No. CIY-400-60-301]
 FACT SHEET—APPLICATION FOR NPDES PERMIT
      TO DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS

  Acme  Paper Products,  Inc.,  11346 North
 Fremont Street, Cape Rockaway, State (ZIP),
 has  applied for a Department of Environ-
 mental Protection permit to discharge  pol-
 lutants into State waters.
  Applicant is a manufacturer of bleached
 grades of paper from  kraft pulp. Two dis-
 charges are described in the application: One
 of utility waste water from applicant's steam
 generating plant and  the other of process
 wastes from  the manufacture of pulp and
 paper.  Both discharges are  to Martin Creek
 one-half-mile upstream from Whitehall Bay.
 The receiving  waters  are classified  for  in-
 dustrial  and  navigation  use,  contact  rec-
 reation,  and  propagation of fish and wild-
 life. A more complete description of the dis-
 charges and a sketch of their location follow
 below.
  The  application, proposed permit Including
 proposed  effluent  limitations  and   special
 conditions, comments  received,  and other
 information Is  on file and may be inspected
 and  copied in  Room 814, 1616 Court House
Drive, Capital City, State  (ZIP), at any time
between  8:15  a.m.  and 4:45 p.m.. Monday
through Friday.
  The  proposed staff  determinations  are
 tentative. Persons wishing to comment upon
 or object to the proposed determinations are
 invited to  submit same  in  writing  to the
 above  address no later than September 12,
 1973. All comments or objections received
 prior to September 12, 1973, will  be considered
 In the formulation of final determinations
 regarding the application. If no objections
 are received, the Director  will issue his final
determinations within 60 days of the date
 of public notice. As  described more fully
 below, a public hearing may be held If  re-
 sponse to public notice Indicates significant
 public Interest.
      Sketch  showing location of discharges
  Description  of proposed dtscftorpres—Dis-
charge 001.  Utility  waste water from steam
generating plant.

AVERAGE Flow: £00,000 GALLONS PEK OPERATING DAY


  Average temperatures:     Intake    Discharge
Summer		88° F	98° F.
Winter		38" F	56° F.
  Discharge 002. Process wastes from manu-
facture of pulp and paper.

AVERAGE FLOW: 24,300,000 GALLONS PEB OPERATING
                   DAY
Constituents
BOD 	
Suspended solids 	
Phenols. . .
Mercury.

Milligrams
per liter
00
110
0.6
0.0028

Pounds
per day
18 000
22,000
100
0 6

  Proposed determinations.  The Division of
Water Quality and Resources has examined
the above application. On the basis of appli-
cable effluent limitations  and water quality
standards, the State Water Quality and Re-
sources Act of 1971. as amended, and regula-
tions Issued  thereunder,  the Division pro-
poses to issue the applicant a permit to dis-
charge subject to  effluent  limitations  and
certain other conditions. The following Is a
brief description of the proposed effluent lim-
itations and special conditions:
  (1) Proposed effluent limitations.
  Discharge 001. none
  Discharge 002.  visible  foam  and  visible
floating solids prohibited.  The following dis-
charge  constituents  shall   be  limited   as
follows:
Constituents
BOD 	
Suspended solids

Mercury ...

Mllltg fans
Iier liter
27. 6
26
0.10
0.0006

Founds
per day
8,800
6,000
20
0.10

  (2) Proposed schedule for compliance. The
applicant shall achieve the effluent levels de-
scribed In subsection (1) above in accordance
with the following schedule:
  Submission of final plans to Director by:
November 15, 1973.
  Commencement of construction by: Jan-
uary 15, 1974.
  Completion  of  construction  by:  Septem-
ber 15, 1974.
  Operational level attained by: November 1,
1974.
  (3) Proposed special conditions. The appli-
cant Is required to operate his treatment
facilities at maximum efficiency at all times.
The applicant Is required to monitor his dis-
charges on a regular basis and  report  the
results every  3 months. The monitoring re-
sults will be available to the public. The ap-
plicant Is required to conduct studies of pos-
sible adverse  effects of his heated water dis-
charge 001 upon free floating marine life and
shellfish  In Martin Creek and Whitehall Bay.
If applicant's study or Independent informa-
tion supplied to  the  Director indicate an
adverse effect, the applicant will be required
to take additional measures to minimize the
adverse Impact.
  Applicable  effluent limitations  and  water
quality standards. The following are the ef-
fluent  limitations and water quality stand-
ards which were applied to applicant's dis-
charge In the formulation of the above pro-
posed determinations:
  (1) All effluent limitations except mercury
are based upon  effluent guidelines  for  the
pulp and paper Industry,  manufacture of
bleached paper grades from kraft pulp. See
40 CFR 128.74, 128.89, and 128.91(0.
  (2) The mercury limitation Is based upon
effluent limitations for toxic substances. See
40 CFR 136.22 (b) and (c).
  (3) For water quality standards for Martin
Creek and Whitehall Bay, See 40 CFR 42.66
et. seq. Both  are classified  for the following
uses: Industrial use, navigational use. con-
tact recreation, and  propagation of fish and
wildlife.
  Written comments. Interested persons are
invited to  submit written  comments  upon
the  proposed discharge and the Director's
proposed determinations. Comments should
be submitted by September 12, 1973, either
In person or  by mall to:
Director, Division of Water Quality and Re-
  sources, Attention: Office  of Permit  Proc-
  essing. 1616 Courthouse Drive, Capital City,
  State (ZIP).
  The  application  number  should appear
next to the above address on the envelope
and on the first page of any submitted com-
ments. All comments received by  September
12,  1973, will be considered  In the formula-
tion of flnal  determinations. If no  written
objections are received, the Director will Issue
his flnal determinations no later  than 60
days following the date of this notice.
  Information and copying. Persons wishing
further Information may write to the above
address or call the Office of Permit Processing
at 307 445-8922. Copies of  the application.
proposed permit including  proposed effluent
limitations and special conditions, comments
received, and  other  documents (other than
those which the Director maintains as con-
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO.  247—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22,  1972
-------
28402
                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
                     fidentlal) are available at the Office of Permit
                     Processing  for Inspection  and  copying.  A
                     copying machine Is available for public use
                     at a charge of $0.15 per copy sheet.
                       Register of interested persons. Any person
                     Interested  In  a  particular application  of
                     group of applications may  leave his  name,
                     address, and phone number as  part of the
                     file for an application. The list of names will
                     be maintained as a means  for persons with
                     an  Interest In  an application  to contact
                     others with similar Interests.
                       PufcZie hearings.  If submitted comments
                     Indicate a significant public Interest In the
                     application or If he believes useful Informa-
                     tion may be produced thereby, the Director,
                     In his discretion, may hold a public hearing
                     on the application. Any person may request
                     the Director to hold a public hearing on the
                     application.
                       Public notice  of  a  hearing will be  circu-
                     lated at least 30 days in advance  of the hear-
                     ing. The hearing will  be held In  the vicinity
                     of the  discharge. Thereafter, the Director
                     will formulate his final determinations with-
                     in 60 days. Further Information regarding the
                     conduct and nature of public  hearings con-
                     cerning discharge permits may  be obtained
                     by  writing or visiting the  Office of Permit
                     Processing,  1616  Courthouse Drive,  Capital
                     City, State (zip).

                                     APPENDIX C

                      SAMPLE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
                        HELD IN REGARD TO NPDES APPLICATIONS

                      DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

                     DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY AND RESOURCES,
                       1618 COURTHOUSE DRIVE, CAPITAL CITY, STATE
                       (ZIP) 307-445—8922

                     [Public  Notice   No.  OPP-72-301-PH-24;
                          Application No. CIY-400-60-301 ]

                     NOTICE—ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
                       ON APPLICATION OF ACME PAPER PRODUCTS
                       To  DISCHARGE  POLLUTANTS  INTO  MARTIN
                       CREEK NEAR WHITEHALL BAY.  CAPE  ROCK-
                       AWAY, EDWARDS COUNTY,  STATE

                       Acme Paper Products, Inc.,  11345 North
                     Fremont Street, Cape Rockaway,  State (ZIP),
                     has applied for a Department of Environmen-
                     tal Protection permit  to discharge pollutants
                     Into Martin  Creek one-half mile upstream
                     from Whitehall Bay. The discharge and the
                     Department's  proposed determinations have
                     been previously  described  in  Public  Notice
                     No. OPP-72-301, dated August 12, 1973. Due
                     to numerous comments received concerning
                     the application, the filing of several petitions
                     requesting a hearing,  and the likelihood that
                     Information  may  be presented  which will
                     assist the Department in the formulation of
                     final determinations  regarding  the applica-
                     tion, the Director of the Department  of En-
                     vironmental  Protection will hold a  public
                     hearing at the time and place stated  below:
  Hearing to be held at 7 p.m., on Septem-
ber 30, 1973, In Center High School Gymna-
sium, 2171  Furlong Avenue, Cape Rockaway,
State (ZIP).
  Some of the Issues to be considered at the
hearing are as  follows:
  (1) Do the Department's proposed effluent
limitations for  the  applicant's discharge No.
002 represent a proper application of Indus-
trial  effluent guidelines  to the  applicant's
Industrial processes.
  (2) Do related water quality or environ-
mental  factors require the specification  of
stricter effluent limitations, additional re-
quirements, or  particular  methods of treat-
ment or control. In particular,
  (a) Will the Department's proposed effluent
limitations. If met, restore  uncontamlnated
shellfish populations in Whitehall Bay  (wa-
ter  quality standards classify Whitehall Bay
for  propagation of fish and shellfish).
  (b) Does contamination of subsurface wells
and water  supplies of adjacent home and
cottage owners result from, leaks In appli-
cant's treatment lagoons. If so, does the De-
partment have  the authority to require the
applicant (1) to repair the leaks, and (11)  to
compensate the adjacent  home and cottage
owners for damages resulting from the  con-
tamination of the subsurface wells and water
supplies.
  (c) Does the Department have the author-
ity  to control  the manner in  which the
applicant   utilizes  adjoining  marshes  and
wetlands as additional treatment lagoons In
order to meet  the Department's  proposed
effluent limitations. If so, what  measures can
be  taken by  the applicant to minimize any
harmful effects to adjoining wetlands and
fish and wildlife habitats therein.
  All interested parties are Invited to  be
present or  to be represented to express  their
views on these and other Issues relating to
the above application. Parties making presen-
tations are urged to address their statements
to  the above stated Issues.  Oral statements
will be heard,  but, for the accuracy of the
record,  all Important testimony  should  be
submitted In writing. Oral statements should
summarize any extensive written material so
there will be time for all interested parties
to  be heard.
  The application, related  documents, the
Department's proposed limitations, and  all
comments and  petitions received are on file
and may be Inspected and copied In Room
814, 1616 Court House Drive,  Capital  City.
State (ZIP), at any time between 8:15 a.m.
and 4:45 p.m., Monday throxigh Friday. Copies
of public notice OPP-72-301 are available at
the above address or by calling the Office of
Permit  Processing at 307—445-8922.
  Please bring the foregoing to the attention
of  persons whom you know would be Inter-
ested In this matter.

  [FR Doc.72-21987 Filed 12-21-72:8:45  am)
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL  37, NO. 147—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1972
-------
                 V.2

                TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973
                WASHINGTON, D.C.

                Volume 38 • Number 98


                PART III
                ENVIRONMENTAL
                   PROTECTION
                     AGENCY
                 NATIONAL POLLUTANT
                DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
                      SYSTEM
Mo. M—Pt. in	1
-------
13528
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  Title 40—Protection of the Environment

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
    SUBCHAPTER  D—WATER PROGRAMS
   PART 123—NATIONAL POLLUTANT
   DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

  On January 11, 1973, notice was pub-
lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER  (38  PR
1362) that the Environmental Protection
Agency  was proposing policies and pro-
cedures for  the National Pollutant Dis-
charge  Elimination  System  (NPDES)
pursuant to sections 402  and 405 of  the
Federal  Water  Pollution  Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat.  816; 33
U.S.C.   1251nt,  1972)  (hereinafter  re-
ferred to as the Act). See the preamble
of the proposed rulemaking for a descrip-
tion of the purposes of the regulations.
  Written  comments on the proposed
rulemaking  were invited and received
from  interested parties. A number  of
verbal comments also were received. The
Environmental  Protection Agency  has
carefully considered  all submitted com-
ments. All written comments are on file
with the Agency. Certain of these com-
ments have been adopted or substantially
satisfied by editorial changes, deletions
from, or  additions to the  regulations.
These  and other principal changes  are
discussed below.
  a. Many commenters pointed out that
the permit  program conducted on  the
Federal level should not be inconsistent
with the guidelines for State permit pro-
grams, as promulgated by the Agency on
December 18, 1972. Some of the major
changes made to meet this requirement
are:
  (1) The signatory requirements have
been modified to allow authorized repre-
sentatives and other responsible parties
to sign NPDES forms. (See 1125.12.)
  (2) Draft permits are now prepared
and are made available to the public be-
fore the final permit is prepared. (See
{125.31.)
  (3) Mailing lists will  now  be main-
tained  for  people to receive copies of
fact sheets and public  notices  without
the necessity of  requesting  each fact
sheet   following  public notice.  (See
JJ 125.32 and 125.33.)
  (4) Fact  sheets are only required for
discharges exceeding 500,000 gallons on
any day of the year. (See { 125.33.)
  (5) Procedures for handling confiden-
tial information have been changed to
conform to  EPA regulations for thehan-
dling of such data pursuant to 40 CFR 2.
 (See i 125.35.)
   (6)  Schedules of compliance must now
be  set so that, to the mnyitniiTn extent
practicable, the final and interim dates
fall on the last day of the months of
March, June, September, and December.
Also, Regional Administrators must pre-
pare a list of all instances of noncompU-
 ance and this  list shall be available to
 the public.  (See ! 125.23.)
   (7)  Schedules of compliance may now
be  extended, after public notice, by the
Regional Administrator  where good and
valid cause (such as act of God, strike,
 flood, etc.)  exists for the failure to com-
 ply .with the schedule. (See { 125.23.)
  (8) Permits may now be transferred
without the prior written approval of the
Regional Administrator. (See 1125.22.)
  (9> A new condition of every permit
now requires that any discharge  must
be consistent with toxic effluent stand-
ards  or prohibitions  when  they are
promulgated under section 807 (a) of the
Act. (See 5  125.22.)
  b. Revisions other than those concern-
ing consistency with the State guidelines
for the permit program.
  (1) The regulations, in several places,
make clear that permit issuing authority
for Federal facilities cannot be delegated
to the States. (See § 125.2 (a) and (b).)
  (2) The filing date requirements were
clarified to provide  that the Regional
Administrators could  allow  later  filing
dates upon request of an applicant. (See
5125.12(d).)
  (3)  The provision that site visits be
accomplished and requested Information
be received within 60 days was changed
to allow the receipt of the information
or the  accomplishment of  the site visit
to  be  arranged  within 60  days.  (See
S 125.13.)
  (4)  Major changes  were  made con-
cerning the procedures to  be followed
with respect to fish and wildlife interests.
The  procedures  now  require Regional
Administrators to meet with appropriate
officials of the Departments of  Interior
and Commerce to determine what appli-
cations the fish and wildlife interests will
receive automatically, and those agencies
may then comment within 30 days on ap-
propriate conditions for inclusion  In the
permit. (See S 125.14.)
   (5)  The  requirement that Regional
Administrators must first check with cer-
tifying agencies  at the end of the al-
lotted period of time for certification be-
fore determining that a   waiver has
occurred, Jias been deleted to avoid delay.
 (See S 125.15.)'
   (6)  A new § 125.42(b) has been added
to  show the relationship of the Refuse
Act. 33 UJ3.C.  407, to  the NPDES.
   (7)  The bearings and appeals section
has been substantially modified to pro-
vide for adjudicatory  hearings. Consist-
ent with the purposes of section 101 (e)
of  the Act, public hearings are also pro-
vided for. (See {126.32.)
   (8)  It is now clearly pointed out that
 inspections  of monitoring equipment,
 sampling methods, etc., must be accom-
 plished  at  reasonable  times.   (See
 S 125.22.)
   (9) The requirement that permittees
 agree to comply with  all the terms and
 conditions of the permit in writing has
 been deleted since it  was believed that
 It  was unnecessary and only confused
the issue during the period before signa-
 ture.  (See  $ 125.22.)
   (10) Public notices will now require
 a statement of whether the application
 pertains to a new or existing discharge.
 This will  better describe the discharge.
 (See § 125.32.)
   (11) Public nbtices  will  now require,
 where appropriate, a statement that con-
 fidential  Information  has  been received
 that  may  be used  to determine ap-
 propriate  conditions of a permit when
such confidential information' has been
received. This  change will make pro-
posed terms and conditions of permits
more understandable.
  (13) The delegation of  authority in
1125.5 hat* been modified to substan-
tially increase the delegation of author-
ity  to  Regional Administrators. This
change will enable the program to oper-
ate closer to the discharges while still re-
taining  necessary  authorities  in  the
Administrator.
  (13) The exclusions from the require-
ment to apply for an NPDES permit have
been changed to accomplish the follow-
ing (see $ 125.4):
  (i) The exclusion of deposits into pub-
licly owned treatment works Is clarified
and now included within the  "Exclu-
sions section." This was implied in the
proposed rulemaking but is explicit now;
  (il)  Most discharges  from  vessels to
Inland waters are now clearly excluded
from the permit requirements. This type
of discharge generally causes little pollu-
tion and exclusion of vessel wastes from
the permit requirements will reduce ad-
ministrative costs drastically;
  (ill) Discharges of sewage sludge  and
all  other pollutants from vessels to the
territorial  sea, the  contiguous zone,  and
the ocean  will be covered by the permit
program established by the Marine Pro-
tection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (Public Law 92-532).
   (iv) Uncontrolled  discharges  com-
posed entirely  of  stormwater  are  ex-
cluded from  the  permit  requirements
unless they  are determined  to  be  sig-
nificant contributors of pollution.
   (14) The definition of "trade secrets"
has been deleted.
   (15) The  definition  of   "navigable
waters" has been clarified by incorporat-
ing additional language.
   (16) The requirement that joint Fed-
eral-State public notice agreements be
published  in the FBDKKAL  REGISTER has
been deleted. Now, any  agreement con-
sistent with the regulations is valid with-
out publication.
  Because of the importance of promptly
 making known to other Federal Agen-
 cies, States, dischargers, environmental-
 ists, and  other interested persons the
 content of these regulations and because
of  the need to issue permits promptly,
 the Administrator finds good cause to
 declare the regulations effective immedi-
 ately upon publication.
   Dated May 16,1973.
                    ROBERT W. FRI,
                 Acting Administrator.
 Sec.
 135.1
 136.3
 1253
 135.4
 136.6
     Subpart A—General

Definitions.
Scope and purpose.
Law authorizing permits.
Exclusions.
Delegation of authority.
       Sufcpnt B—Procmtlng of Pwmlti
 135.11  General provisions.
 136.13  Application for a permit.
 136.13  Access to facilities.
 136.14  Distribution of application and per-
          mit.
 135.16  State certification.
                                 FEDHIAl REGISTER, VOL. 3B, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 22,  1973
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        13529
  Subpsrt C—Terms end Conditions of PwmNs
Sec.
126.21  Prohibitions.
126.22  Conditions of permits.
126.28  Schedules of compliance.
126.24  Bffluent limitations In permits.
126.26  Duration of permits.
126.20  Special categories of permits.
126.27  Monitoring, recording, and reporting.
   Subpsrt D—Notlce and Public PartlelpaMen
196.31  Formulation of tentative determina-
        tions »nd draft permits.
126.32  Public notice.
126.33  Fact sheets.
12634  Hearings and appeals.
195.35  Public access to information.
         Subpert E—MtoeennMOMS
126.41  Objections to permit  by another
        State.
126.42  Other legal action.
126.43  Environmental Impact statements.
125.44  Final decision of  the Regional  Ad-
        ministrator.
  AUTHOSITT.—Sees. 409 and 406 of the fed-
eral Water Pollution  Control  Act Amend-
ments of 1973 (86 Stet. 816 et seq.; Public
Law 92-600,38 TJB.C. 12Unt).

          Subpart A—General
§ 125.1  Definitions.
  Except as  otherwise  specifically  pro-
vided:
  (a) The term "Act" means the Federal
Water  Pollution   Control  Act,   as
amended. Public Law 92-500. 33 UJS.C.
1251nt.
  (b) The term "Administrator"' means
the Administrator of the UJ3.  Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
  (c)  The   term  "applicable  effluent
standards and  limitations" means all
State and Federal effluent standards and
limitations to which a discharge is sub-
ject  under the  Act, including,  but  not
limited to, effluent limitations, standards
of performance, toxic effluent standards
and   prohibitions,   and  pretreatment
standards.
  (d) The term "applicable water qual-
ity standards" means  all water quality
standards to which  a discharge is  sub-
ject under the Act and which have been
(1) approved or permitted to remain in
effect by the Administrator pursuant to
section 303 (a)  or section 303 (c) of the
Act,  or (2) promulgated by the Admin-
istrator pursuant  to section 303 (b)  or
section 303(c)  of the Act.
  (e) The  term "applicant" means an
applicant for an NPDES permit.
  (f) The term "contiguous zone" means
the entire zone established or to be estab-
lished by the United States under article
24 of the Convention of the Territorial
Sea  and the Contiguous Zone.
  (g)  The term "discharge" when  used
without qualification  includes a  dis-
charge of a pollutant and a discharge of
pollutants.
  (h)  The term "discharge of pollutant"
and  the term "discharge  of pollutants"
each means (1)  any addition of any pol-
lutant to navigable waters other than the
territorial sea, from any point source, (2)
any  addition of any pollutant to the
waters of the territorial sea, the contigu-
ous zone or  the ocean from any point
source other  than a vessel or other float-
ing craft.
  (i)  The  term  "effluent  limitations'*
means any restriction established by  a
State or the Administrator on quantities,
rates, and concentrations of  chemical,
physical, biological, and other constitu-
ents which  are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters
of the contiguous zone or the ocean, in-
cluding schedules of compliance.
  (j)  The term "Environmental Protec-
tion Agency"  means the  U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
  (k) The  term  "interstate  agency"
means an agency of two or more States
established by or pursuant to an agree-
ment or compact approved by the Con-
gress, or any other agency of two or more
States,  having  substantial  powers  or
duties pertaining to the control of pollu-
tion as determined and approved by the
Administrator.
  (1)  The term "minor discharge" means
any discharge which  (1) has  a total
volume  of less than 50,000  gallons-on
every day of the year, (2)  does not affect
the waters of more than  one State and
(3) is not identified by the State water
pollution  control agency, the Regional
Administrator, or by the Administrator
in regulations issued pursuant to  section
307(a) of the Act, as a discharge which
is not a minor discharge. If there is more
than  one  discharge from a facility and
the sum of the volumes of all discharges
from  the facility exceeds 50,000 gallons
on any day of the year, then no discharge
from  the facility is a minor dlscharga as
defined herein.
  (m) The term "municipality" means
a city, town, borough, county, parish dis-
trict,  association, or  other public body
created by or pursuant to State law and
having jurisdiction over disposal of sew-
age, industrial wastes, or other wastes, or
an  Indian tribe or an authorized Indian
tribal organization, or a designated and
approved  management   agency   under
section 208 of the Act.
  (n) The  term  "National  Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System" (herein-
after  referred to as "NPDES")  for  the
purpose of these regulations means the
system  for issuing,  conditioning, and
denying  permits for  the discharge of
pollutants from point sources into  the
navigable waters, the contiguous zone,
and the oceans, by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection  Agency
pursuant to sections 402 and 405 of the
Act.
  (o) The term "navigable waters" in-
cludes :
  (1) All navigable waters of the United
States;
   <2) Tributaries of  navigable  waters
of the United States;
  (3) Interstate waters;
  (4)  Intrastate  lakes,  rivers,  and
streams which are utilized by interstate
travelers for recreational or other pur-
poses;
  (5) Intrastate  lakes,   rivers,  and
streams from which fish or shellfish are
taken and sold.in interstate commerce;
and
   (6) Intrastate  lakes,   rivers,  and
streams which are utilized for industrial
purposes by Industries hi interstate com-
merce.
  (p) The term "new source"  means
any  building, structure, facility  or In-
stallation from whieh there is or may be
a discharge of  pollutants, the construc-
tion of which  is commenced after the
publication of proposed regulations pre-
scribing  a  standard  of  performance
under section 300 of the Act, which will
be applicable  to such source,  if  such
standard is thereafter promulgated in
accordance with section 306.
  (q) The term  "NPDES   application
short form" or "short form" means one
or more, as appropriate, of the following:
  (1) Short form A—Municipal Waste-
water Dischargers.
  (2) Short form B—Agriculture.
  (3) Short form C—Manufacturing Es-
tablishments and Mining.
  (4) Short  form D—Services, Whole-
sale, and Retail Trade, and All Other
Commercial  Establishments, Including
Vessels, Not Engaged in Manufacturing
or Agriculture.
  (r) The term  "NPDE6   application
standard form"  or  "standard  form"
means one or  more, as appropriate, of
the following:
  (1) Standard form A—Municipal.
  (2) Standard form C—Manufacturing
and Commercial.
  (s) The  term  "NPDES   application
form" Includes NPDES application short
forms and NPDES application standard
forms.
  (t) The term "ocean" means any por-
tion of the high seas beyond the  con-
tiguous zone.
  (u) The term  "permit"  means  any
permit  or  equivalent  document  or re-
quirement  issued  to regulate the  dis-
charge of pollutants.
  (v) The term "person" means an in-
dividual, corporation, partnership,  asso-
ciation, State, municipality, commission,
or political subdivision of a State, or any
interstate body.
  (w)  The term "point source" means
any discernible,  confined  and  discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to
any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,
well,  discrete fissure,  container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal feeding oper-
ation,  or vessel or other floating craft,
from which  pollutants are  or may be
discharged.
  (x)  The  term   "pollutant"  means
dredged spoil,  solid waste,  incinerator
residue,  sewage, garbage, sewage sludge,
munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials,  radioactive  materials,  heat,
wrecked or discarded equipment,  rock,
sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, munici-
pal, and agricultural  waste discharged
into water. It does not mean  (1) "sewage
from vessels" or (2)  water, gas, or other
material which is injected into a well to
facilitate production  of oil or gas, or
water derived  in association with oil or
gas production and disposed of in a well,
if the well used either to facilitate pro-
duction  or for disposal purposes is ap-
proved by authority of the State in which
the  well is located, and if  such State
determines that  such injection or  dis-
                                 FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 38,  NO.  98—TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973
-------
13530
     RULES  AND RIOULATIONS
posal win not result in the degradation
of ground or surface water resources.
  COMMBKT.—The legislative history of the
Act reflect* that the term "radioactive mate-
riau" M included within the definition of
"pollutant" in Motion 609 of the Act coven
only  radioactive materials which  are not
encompassed In the definition  of  source,
byproduct, or special nuclear  materials as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act of IBM, as
amended, and  regulated  pursuant  to the
latter Act. Examples of radioactive materials
not covered by the Atomic Energy Act and,
therefore. Included  within the term "pol-
lutant" are radium and accelerator produced
isotopes.  (H.R. Rep. 93-911, 93d Cong. 3d
Bess., 131, March 11, 1973;  117 Cong. Bee.
17401, dally ed., November a, 1971; 118 Cong.
Bee.  9116, dally ed.,  October 4. 1973.)

   (y) The term  "pollution"  means the
man-made or man-induced alteration of
the  chemical,  physical,  biological, and
radiological integrity of water.
   (z) The term "Regional Administra-
tor" means one of the Regional Admin-
istrators of the United States Environ-
mental Protection  Agency.
   (aa)  The term "schedule  of compli-
ance" means  a  schedule of  remedial*
measures including an enforceable se-
quence of actions or operations leading
to compliance with an effluent limitation,
other limitation,  prohibition, or stand-
ard.
   tbb)  The term "sewage from vessels"
means  human body  wastes  and  the
wastes from toilets and other receptacles
intended to receive or retain body wastes.
that are discharged from vessels.
   (cc)  The term "sewage sludge" means
the   solids  and  precipitates separated
from municipal  sewage and industrial
wastes  of  a liquid nature by the unit
processes of a treatment works.
   (dd) The term "State" means a State,
the District of Columbia, Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Trust Terri-
tory of the Pacific Islands.
   (ee)  The term "State water pollution
control agency" means the State agency
designated by the Governor having re-
sponsibility for enforcing State laws re-
lating to the abatement of  pollution.
   (ff)  The term "territorial seas" means
the  belt of the seas measured from the
line  of  ordinary  low  water along that
portion of the coast which  la in direct
 contact with the open sea and the line
 marking the  seaward limit of inland
 waters, and extending seaward a distance
 of 3 miles.
   (gg) The  term  "treatment  works"
 means any facility, method or system for
 the storage, treatment, recycling, or rec-
 lamation of municipal sewage or Indus-
 trial wastes of a liquid nature, including
 waste in combined storm water and sani-
 tary sewer systems.
 § 125.2  Scope and purpose.
   (a) (1)  The regulations  in this part
 prescribe'the policy and procedures to be
 followed in connection with applications
 for federally issued permits authorizing
 discharges into the navigable waters, the
 waters of the contiguous zone, and the
 oceans, during the periods that the Ad-
ministrator  of  the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to authorized  to issue
such permits pursuant to sections 402
and 409 of the Act.
  (2) The regulations in. this part also
prescribe  the policy and procedures  to
be  followed  in  connection with permits
authorizing discharges into the navigable
waters, the waters of the  contiguous
zone, and the  oceans  from any  agency
or instrumentality of the Federal Gov-
ernment and from any Indian activity
on Indian lands.
  (b) The regulations in this part do not
prescribe  policy or  procedures for the
issuance of permits by States under pro-
grams approved by the  Administrator
pursuant  to section 402 (b) of the Act.
Such State programs do not cover agen-
cies and Instrumentalities of the Federal
Government and Indian activities on In-
dian lands under the jurisdiction of the
United States.
 § 125.3   Law authorising permit*.
   (a)  Section 301 (a) of the Act provides
that "Except as in compliance with this
section and sections S02,  306, 307, 318,
402. and  404 of this Act,  the  discharge
of any pollutant by any person shall be
unlawful."
   (b)  Section  402 of the Act establishes
the NPDES. This section provides,  in
part, that "the Administrator may, after
opportunity for public hearing,  issue a
 permit for the discharge of any pollutant,
 or  combination of pollutants, • * • upon
 condition that such discharge will meet
 either all applicable requirements under
 sections 301, 302,  306. 307, 308, and 403
 of  tthel  Act,  or prior to the  taking of
 necessary implementing actions relating
 to, all  such requirements, such conditions
 as the  Administrator  determines are
 necessary to carry out the provisions of
 [the]  Act."
   (c)  Section  409 of the Act prohibits
 the disposal of sewage sludge where any
 pollutant from such sludge would enter
 navigable waters except in accordance
 with a permit  issued by the Administra-
 tor under section 409. This section pro-
 vides in part that "in any case where the
 disposal of sewage sludge resulting from
 the operation of a treatment works *  • •
 (Including the removal of in-place sew-
 age sludge from one location and its  de-
 posit  at  another  location) would result
 in any pollutant from such sewage sludge
 entering the navigable waters, such dis-
 posal is prohibited except In accordance
 with a permit  issue by the Administrator
 under this section."
    (d)  Unless  specifically noted to  the
 contrary, all provisions of these regula-
 tions concerning permits under section
 402 of the Act are applicable  to permits
 under section 409 of  the Act.
 § 125.4  Exclusions.
   The following do not require an NPDES
 permit:
    (a) Any discharge of sewage from ves-
 sels,  effluent  from  properly functioning
 marine  engines,  laundry, shower, and
 galley sink wastes, or any other discharge
 incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel:  Provided,  That  this  exclusion
shall not be construed to apply to rub-
bish, trash, garbage, or other such mate-
rials discharged overboard: nor to dis-
charges when the vessel Is operating in
a capacity other than a vessel such as
when a vessel is being used as a storage
facility or  a cannery;
  (b)  Water,  gas,  or other  material
which is injected Into a well to facilitate
production of oil or gas, or water derived
in association with oil or gas production
and disposed of  in a well, if the well
used  either to facilitate  production or
for disposal purposes  Is  approved  by
authority of the State in which the well
is located and if such State determines
that such injection or disposal will not
result in the degradation of ground or
surface water resources;
   (c)  Approved aquaculture projects;
   (d)   Dredged  or  fill  material dis-
charged into navigable  waters;
   (e)  Additions  of  sewage,  Industrial
wastes or other  materials into publicly
owned treatment works. (This exclusion
applies only to  the  actual addition of
materials into the publicly owned treat-
ment works. Plans or agreements to make
such additions in the future do  not  re-
lieve  dischargers of  the  obligation to
apply for and receive.permits until  the
discharges  of pollutants to  navigable
waters are actually  eliminated. It also
should be noted that In all appropriate
cases, pretreatment  standards promul-
gated by the Administrator pursuant to
section 307 (b) of the Act must be com-
plied  with.);
   (f)  Uncontrolled discharges composed
entirely of storm runoff when these dis-
charges are uncontaminated by  any in-
dustrial or commercial activity, unless
 the particular storm  runoff  discharge
has been identified by the Regional Ad-
 ministrator, the  State  water pollution
control agency or an interstate agency
 as a significant contributor of pollution.
 (It is anticipated that significant con-
 tributors of pollution will be Identified in
 connection  with  the development of
 plans pursuant to section 303 (e) of the
 Act. This exclusion applies only to sepa-
 rate storm sewers. Discharges from com-
 bined sewers and bypass sewers are not
 excluded.)
    (g)  Any discharge of  any pollutant
 when such discharge conforms with the
 national contingency plan for removal
 of oil and hazardous substances, pub-
 lished pursuant  to subsection 311(c) (2)
 of the act.
 § 125.5  Delegation of authority.
    (a)  Subject to the appeal  provisions
 of  S 125.34  of  these regulations  and
 the national security responsibility pro-
 vision of  S 125.35 (c)  of these  regu-
 lations, the following authorities  are
 hereby delegated to each of the Regional
 Administrators  for  the  area  which he
 administers.
    (1) The authority to issue and condi-
 tion permits or to deny applications for
 permits  for discharge covered by  the
 NDPES and by section 405 of  the  act.
                                 HEDMAl REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 9S—TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973
-------
                                            BULB AMD REGUIATIONS
                                                                       13531
   (2) The authority pursuant to section
402(dKU  of the act to receive Iron a
State a copy of each permit application
received by such State  and to receive
notice of every action related to the con-
sideration of such permit application, in-
cluding each permit proposed to be issued
by such State.
   (3) The authority pursuant to section
403 (d) (3) (A) of the  act  to object in
writing to the issuance of any permit
within 90 days of the date of his notifica-
tion under section 402 (b) (5)  of the act.
   (4) The authority pursuant to section
402(d)(2)(B) of the  act  to object in
writing within 90 days of his receipt of a
proposed permit from a State where finds
that the isauanoe of such permit would
be outside of the guidelines and require-
ments of the Act.
    B* aathortty granted tether Ad-
Mlnhrtraepi by section 3(MMa>.and if ex-
ercised  in conformance with I 125.35. of
these regulations, section 3«8(b> of the
Act to hereby rtPlegTitart  to each of the
Regional  Administrators for  the area
which he administers.
   (O These authorities may be redele-
gated to the Director, Enforcement Di-
vision, of each region.
    Subpett B  Processing of Perm*?
§  125.11   General pnoviiiom.
   (a) All  discharges  of pollutant* or
combination of pollutant* from aD point
souraes  into the navigable waters, the
waters  of  the  contiguous  xdne. or the
ocean an  unlawful  and subject to the
penalties  provided  by the Act, unless
the discharger has a permit or is specif-
ically relieved by law or regulation from
the obligation of  obtaining a permit. A
discharge authorised by a  permit must
be consistent with the terms and condi-
tions of such permit Discharges in vtela>
tion of permit terms and coruBUonemay
result in the institution of proceedings
under the Act.
   (b) The decision as to whether or on
what conditions a permit authorising a
discharge will issue will be based upon
an evaluation as to how such discharge
will meet applicable requirements under
the Act and other applicable laws  and
regulations. Subsequent to the taking of
necessary implementing actions relating
to such requirements,  all discharges In
order to receive a permit must meet the
applicable requirements of  sections  301,
302, 306, 307, 308, and 409, and all regu-
lations  pertaining thereto.
   (c) In the period of time prior to the
talcing of necessary implementing actions
relating  to  all applicable  requirements
under sections 301,302, 306, 307,308, and
403 of the Act, the Administrator may
issue permits under such conditions as
he determines are necessary to carry out
the provisions  of the  Act. Any permit
issued shall include any conditions and
limitations necessary to insure compli-
ance with, any applicable  requirements
of sections 301, 302. 306. 307. 308.  and
403 that become applicable prior to the
issuance of the permit. Foiemust among
other factors to be considered  prior to
the taking of the necessary implementing
actions  is  the  requirement for abate-
ment measures designed to achieve, not
later than July 1, 1977, best practicable
(waste)  control  technology  currently
available for tne particular point source
(other than publicly owned treatment
works)  as  determined by the Regional
Administrator based upon Information
available to him and his professional
judgment taking into account the intent
of sections  301. 302.  306,  307. 308, and
403 of the Act.  Likewise, publicly owned
treatment works must achieve secondary
treatment by July, 1, 1977, or in accord-
ance with the period specified in section
301(b)U)(B) of the Act. Furthermore,
any permit iy-5'wd shall Include any more
stringent condition  pursuant to section
301 (b) (1) (C) of the Act as is necessary
to Insure compliance with any  limita-
tion, including  those necessary to meet
applicable,   water  quality  standards,
treatment  standards,  or  schedules of
compliance, established pursuant to any
State law or regulation (under authority
preserved by section 510 of the Act) or
any other Federal law or  regulation, or
required to Implement any  applicable
water quality standard established pur-
suant to the Act. Plans prepared pursu-
ant to section 303
-------
13532
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS
C (relating to manufacturing establish-
ments and mining) or in Short Form D
(routing to MrvloM. wholesale and retail
trade, and  all other  commercial estab-
lishments, including vessels, not engaged
in manufacturing or agriculture)  or any
oilier Information available to the Re-
gional Administrator indicates any of the
following, the applicant shall be required
to  complete, sign, and submit a Stand-
ard Form C:
  CD The discharges from the faculty
have a total volume of 50,000 gallons on
any day of the year;
  (11) The discharges affect the water of
any State other than  the State of origin;
or,
  (ill)  The  discharges  contain or may
contain toxic pollutants.
  (3)  In addition  to   paragraph  Xh)
(1) or (2)  of this section, an applicant
shall  complete,  sign, and submit the
appropriate standard form If the Re-
gional  Administrator determines that
such submission is necessary to deter-
mine whether or not  and upon what
conditions a permit should be issued for
the discharges Identified In  the short
form.
  (4) Any   applicant  may  submit  a
standard form without  prior submission
of  a short form if he complies with all
applicable filing dates and requirements.
  (1) (1)  Upon submission of an NPDES
application short form to the Regional
Administrator an applicant shall pay a
fee of $10 per application.       	
  (2) Upon submission of an NPDES
application standard form to the Re-
gional Administrator an applicant shall
pay a fee of $100 per application. If there
is more than one outlet from which the
discharge will flow, an additional $60 will
be charged for each additional outlet.
  (3) Any   applicant   submitting  an
NPDES  application  standard form  to
the Regional Administrator who previ-
ously filed aa NPDES application short
form with  the Regional Administrator
may deduct from the fee submitted with
the standard form the amount previously
submitted with the short form.
  (4) If an applicant submits an NPDES
application  standard form to the Re-
gional Administrator without prior sub-
mission of  an NPDES application short
form pursuant  to  {125.12(h) (8).   he
shall pay the fee specified in  paragraph
(1) (2) of this section without the submis-
sion or deduction of  the fee specified in
paragraph  (1) (1) of this section.
  (5) Agencies  or instrumentalities  of
Federal, State, or local governments wfll
not be required to pay any fee hi con-
nection with the filing of an NPDES ap-
plication.
  (6) Checks and money  orders shall
be made out  to the order of Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
  (j) Permittees who wish to continue
to discharge subsequent to the expira-
tion date of their permit must apply for
relssuance  of the  permit using proper
forms, not less  than 180 days prior to
the permit expiration date.
8 125.15  ACC«M to factHtlei and further
     infomuiikwi during evaluation of the
     application.
  Permit application forms art designed
to fit the normal situation for most facili-
ties in the United BtaUs. Di many cases
howovor, further  Information and sito
visits may be necessary In order to evalu-
ate the  discharge completely  and accu-
rately. When the Regional Administrator
determines that either further informa-
tion or a site visit Is necessary In order
for the Environmental Protection Agency
to evaluate the discharge, he shall  so
notify the applicant .and In addition
provide  a date no later than 60  days
hence by which time arrangements will
have been  made for receipt of the re-
quested information and/or scheduling
of the site visit. In the event that a satis-
factory response is not received the per-
mit may be Issued or denied and the ap-
plicant so notified. Sections 308, 309, and
402(k) of the act  provide for sanctions
In the event of noncompllance with rea-
sonable requests for additional Informa-
tion.
§ 125.4  Distribution of application and
     permit.
   (a) When an application for a permit
Is received Regional Administrators shall
determine If the applicant has provided
all of the  Information required  by the
application form and by this  section.
   (b) In order to assure  that the Sec-
retary of the  Army acting through the
Chief of Engineers has adequate time
to evaluate the impact  of the proposed
discharge on anchorage and navigation.
Regional Administrators will forward to
the District Engineer In the appropriate
district one copy of the application form
Immediately upon Its receipt In the  re-
gional office in completed form. Accom-
panying the  application will be  notice
that' the   Environmental   Protection
Agency has received a request for a per-
mit to  discharge and that the District
Engineer has a stated number of days
to evaluate the Impact of granting such
permit  upon anchorage and  navigation
and to advise the Regional Administrator
of his evaluation. District Engineers of
the  Corps of Engineers will normally be
given 30 days to evaluate  the impact on
anchorage and navigation. Where  the
Regional  Administrator finds that less
time should be allowed he should so ad-
vise the District Engineer of  such lesser
period of time while at the  same time
outlining his  reasons  for such lesser
period of time. In all cases the Regional
Administrator should  advise the Dis-
trict Engineer that failure  to  answer
within  the allotted period of time will
be deemed to be a finding that anchor-
age and navigation will not be substan-
tially impaired by granting of this per-
mit. Where  the  District  Engineer ad-
vises the Regional Administrator that
anchorage and navigation of any of  the
navigable waters would be substantially
Impaired by the granting of a  permit,
such permit  wfll be denied and the  ap-
plicant shall  be so notified. Where the
District Engineer advisee the Regional
Administrator  that  the imposition  of
sprained  conditions upon the permit la
uecMMtry to  avoid any nutMtantlal Im-
pairment of any of the navigable waters,
then tho  Uftiloual Admlnlxtrator  nhall
include in tho  permit llioiw  conditions
so specified  by the  District Engineer.
Where the District Engineer notifies the
Regional Administrator that  more time
la needed for his evaluation  more time
will be granted where  it appears that
the  public  interest   warrants   such
extension.
   (c)  Upon  receipt  of  an application
which does not include a State certifica-
tion where such certification Is required
by section 401  of the Act, the Regional
Administrator  will make available one
copy of the application form to the State
water pollution control agency for the
State In  which the discharge occurs or
will occur. Accompanying the application
will be a statement by tie Regional Ad-
ministrator that a request for a permit
has been received by the Environmental
Protection Agency, and that before the
Agency can act upon such request, the
State must (1)  certify that the discharge
will comply  with the  applicable  provi-
sions of  sections 301, 302, 306, and 307
or (2)  certify  that there are no appli-
cable effluent or other limitations under
sections  301  and 302 and there are no
applicable standards under sections 306
and 307, or  (3) deny such certification
or (4) waive its right to certify or to deny
such certification. The Regional Admin-
istrator must also state that such certifi-
cation or denial must be received within
a specified reasonable period of time or
a waiver will be deemed to have occurred.
   (d)  Upon receipt  of an  application
from a Federal facility the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall make one copy  of the
application form available to the State
water  pollution control  agency for the
State In which the discharge will occur.
Accompanying the  application will be
statement by the Regional Administrator
that a request  for a permit has been re-
ceived by the Environmental Protection
Agency and that the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency would appreciate receiv-
ing from the State its comment on the
discharge  and any  condition  that the
State would  recommend applying to any
permit that might  issue  for  the dis-
charge. The State should be requested
specifically to  provide what conditions
it believes necessary In order that the
discharge will  comply with sections 301,
302, 306, 307, and 313 of the Act.
   (e) Regional Administrators shall as-
sist applicants for permits In coordinat-
ing the  requirements of the Act with
those  of  appropriate  public  health
agencies.
   (f)  (1)  Complete copies of all appli-
cations  filed  with  the Environmental
Protection Agency subsequent to June 1,
1073, shall be  furnished to the Depart-
ment  of  the Interior and  Department
of Commerce  for  comment,  provided
                                FEMBAL MOISTEIt, VOL. 3«, NO. ••—TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973
-------
                                            RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                      13533
that these agencies may waive their right
to  receive toy  permit applications or
categories thereof. Regional Administra-
tors shall meet with appropriate officials
of the Department of Interior and De-
partment of Commerce in order to reach
agreement M to which txiiting appUoa-
tlon forms (flirt prior to June 1, 1*73)
those agendas an to receive. Complete
copies of aB application forms requested
shall  be and* available  to those agen-
cies for comment. When an application
is transmitted to these agencies, accom-
panying it will  be  a notice that the
Envionmental Protection Agency has re-
ceived a request for a permit to discharge
and that the agencies have a stated num-
ber of  days  in  which to evaluate the
Impact  of granting such permit  upon
the fish, shellfish, and wBdUfe resources
of the State In which the discharge will
occur, and to advise the Regional Admin-
istrator of their evaluations. The normal
period of time  to evaluate the effects
of the discharge on fish, sheDflsh, and
wildlife resources win be 30 days. In all
cases the Regional Administrator should
Advise the agencies that failure to an-
swer within the allotted period of time
will be  deemed  to be  a  statement that
the agencies  do  not choose to comment
at this  time. Where the agencies advise
the Regional Administrator that th* im-
position of specified conditions upon the
permit is necessary to avoid substantial
impairment of the fish, shellfish, or wild-
life resources, the Regional Acliaintstntor
may include  in the permit those condi-
tions so specified by the agencies. Where
the agency notifies the Regional Ad-
ministrator that more time is needed for
its evaluation more time will be granted
when It appears to  the Regional Ad-
ministrator Oat the public Interest war-
rants such extension.
  (2) Similar arrangements  should be
agreed von by appropriate  officials of
the Department of Interior and Regional
Administrators concerning the review of
permits which involve disposal of wastes
to groundwater.
  (g) If a permit issues, a copy of the
permit  and, if not previously transmit-
ted, a copy of the application form shaU
be transmitted to the State in which the
discharge  is located.  Copies ef  these
documents shall be available for inspec-
tion and reproduction by the pubic in
the regional  office.
§ 125.15  State certification.
  (a) Section 401 (a) (1) of the Act, pro-
vides  that "Any applicant for a Federal
license or permit to conduct any activity
Including, but not limited  to, the con-
struction or operation of facilities, which
may result in any discharge into the nav-
igable waters, shall provide the licensing
or permitting agency a certification from
the State in which the discharge  orig-
inates or wis.origlnate, or, if appropriate,
from the interstate water pollution con-
trol agency having jurisdiction over the
navigable waters at the point where the
discharge  originates  or will  originate,
that any such discharge will comply with
the applicable provisions of sections 301,
302, 306, and 307 of the Act. m the case
of any such activity for  which there is
not an  applicable  effluent limitation or
other limitation under sections  301 (b)
and 302, and there is not an applicable
standard under sections 309- and 307, the
State shall so certify." Where certifica-
tion in required, no license or permit shall
be granted  until the  certification  hiw
been  obtained  or  has been  waived.  A
waiver  occurs  when  the  certifying
agency fails or refuses bo act on a request
for certification, within a reasonable pe-
riod of  time  (which shall not exceed 1
year)  after receipt of such request. Three
months shaU generally be considered to
be a reasonable period of time. If, how-
ever, special circumstances identified by
the Regional Administrator require that
action on a permit application be taken
within a more limited period of time,
the Regional Administrator shall deter-
mine  a  reasonable  lesser-period of time,
advise the certifying agency of the need
for action by a particular date and that,
if certification is not received by the date
established,  it  will be considered that
the requirement  for  certification  has
been waived. Similarly, if It appears that
circumstances may reasonably require a
period of time longer than 3 months, the
Regional Administrator may  afford the
certifying agency up to 1 year to  provide
the required  certification before deter-
mining  that  a waiver  has  occurred.
Where such extension of time is made
at the request  of the certifying  agency,
the request must be in writing and must
include  the reasons for the request.
  (b)  Any certification  provided shall
set forth any  effluent limitations  and
other limitations,  and monitoring re-
quirements necessary to  insure compli-
ance with any applicable effluent limita-
tions  and other limitations under sec-
tions  301 or 302 of the Act; standard of
performance under section  306  of the
Act, or prohibition, effluent standard, or
pretreatment  standard  under  section
397 of the, Act, and with any other ap-
propriate requirement  of State law set
forth in such certification.
  (c)  Discharges  from agencies  or in-
strumentalities of  the Federal Govern-
ment, as provided  in section 401(a)(6)
of the Act, do not require certification
pursuant to section 401.

   Subpart C—Terms and CondKtonaof
               Permits

§ 125.21  Prohibitions.
  (a) No permit shall be issued in cases
where the  applicant, pursuant  to sec-
tion 401 of the Act, is required to- ob-
tain a State or other appropriate certifi-
cation that the discharge will  comply
with  the applicable provisions  of sec-
tions  301, 302, 306,  and 307- and such
certification was denied.
  (b) No permit shall be issued where
pursuant to section 401(a) (2) of the Act,
the imposition of conditions cannot in-
sure  compliance  with the  applicable
water quality requirements of all aSected
States.
  (c)  No permit shall be Issued tf, in the
Judgment of  the Secretary of the Army
acting through the Chief of  Engineers,
anchorage and navigation of  any of the
navigable waters would be substantially
impaired by the discharge.
  (d> No permit shall be Issued for the
discharge of any radiological, chemical.
or biologist! warfare agent or high-level
radloaottvt  wait*  into  th* navigable
waters.
  (e) No permit shall be issued for any
discharge from a point source in conflict
with a  plan or an amendment thereto
approved pursuant to section 208(b) of
the Act.
  (f) No permit shall be issued for any
discharge to  the  territorial  sea, the
waters  of the contiguous zone, or the
oceans, prior  to  the promulgation of
guidelines under  section  403 (c) of the
Act unless the Regional  Administrator
determines It to be in the public interest.
  (g) No permit shall be issued for any
discharge to  the  territorial  sea, the
waters  of the contiguous zone, or the
oceans, after promulgation of guidelines
under section  403 (c) except  in compli-
ance with such guidelines.
  (h)  No permit shall be Issued for any
discharge to  the  territorial  sea, the
waters  of the contiguous zone, or the
oceans, subsequent to the promulgation
of guidelines pursuant to section 403(c)
of the Act,  where insufficient informa-
tion exists to  make a reasonable  judg-
ment as to whether the discharge com-
plies with any such guidelines.
% 125.22  Conditions of permits.
  (a) Regional Administrators shall in-
sure that the terms and conditions of all
issued permits provide for and insure the
following:
  (1) That all discharges authorized by
the permit shall be consistent  with the
terms and conditions of the permit; that
facility expansions, production increases,
or process modifications which result In
new or increased discharges of pollutants
must be reported by submission of a new
application, or, if such  discharge does
not violate effluent limitations specified
in the permit, by submission to the Re-
gional Administrator of  notice of such
new or increased discharges  of  pol-
lutants: that the discharge  of  any pol-
lutant more frequently than or at a level
In excess of that Identified and author-
ized by the permit  shall constitute a
violation of the terms and conditions of
the permit;
  (2) That following notice  and oppor-
tunity for a public  hearing  the permit
may be modified, suspended, or revoked
In whole or in part during its  term for
cause Including, but not limited to, the
following:
  (1)  Violation of any terms or condi-
tions of the permit;
  (ii)  Obtaining a permit by misrepre-
sentation or failure  to disclose fully all
relevant facts; and,
  (iii) A change in any condition that
requires "either a temporary  or perma-
nent reduction or elimination of the per-
mitted  discharge;
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO.  98—TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973
-------
13534
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (3) That the permittee shall permit
the Regional Administrator or bis au-
thorized representative, and/or the au-
thorized representative  of  the. State
water pollution control  agency in the
case of  non-Federal faculties, upon the
presentation of his credentials:
  (i) To  enter upon  the  permittee's
premises in which an effluent source is
located  or  in which any records are re-
quired to be kept under terms and condi-
tions of the permit;
  (il) To have  access to and copy at
reasonable times any records required to
bo kept under .terms and conditions of
tne permit;
  (ill) To  inspect at  reasonable times
any monitoring equipment or method re-
quired in the permit; or
  (iv) To  sample at  reasonable times
any discharge of pollutants.
  (4) That the permittee shall at an
times maintain in good working order
and operate as efficiently as possible any
facilities or systems of control installed
or utilized by the permittee to achieve
compliance with the terms and condi-
tions of the permit.
  (5) The issuance of a permit does not
convey any property rights either in real
estate or material, or any exclusive priv-
ileges, nor does it authorize any injury
to private property or Invasion of rights,
nor any infringement of Federal, State,
or local laws or regulations; nor does it
obviate the necessity of obtaining State
or local assent required by law for the
discharge  authorized.
   (6) That if a toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule of
compliance specified  in such effluent
standard or prohibition) is established
under section 307 (a)  of the Act  for  a
toxic pollutant which is present in the
permittee's discharge and such standard
or prohibition is more stringent than any
limitation  upon such pollutant in the
permit,  the  Regional  Administrators
shall revise or modify the permit in ac-
cordance with the toxic effluent standard
or   prohibition  and  BO  notify   the
permittee.
   (b) Permits  shall also  include  such
special  conditions  as are necessary to
assure  compliance with  applicable efflu-
ent limitations or other water quality
requirements Including schedules of com-
pliance, treatment standards, and such
other conditions as the Regional Admin-
istrator considers necessary or appropri-
ate to  .carry out  the provisions of the
Act. Permits shall also contain such other
conditions as the District Engineer of the
Corps of Engineers considers to be neces-
sary to insure that navigation  and an-
 chorage will not be  substantially  im-
paired. Also, conditions recommended by
 State water pollution control  officials,
 Federal and State fish, shellfish, and
 wildlife resources officials, or other gov-
 ernmental officials may be added to per-
 mits if the Regional Administrator be-
 lieves such recommended conditions will
 aid in  carrying out the purposes of the
 Act. Furthermore,  all permits will be
 conditioned upon achieving compliance
 with any  applicable effluent limitations
 and other limitations,  and monitoring
requirements set forth in any certifica-
tion Issued pursuant to section 401 of the
Act.
S 125.23  Schedule*  of compliance  fan
     permits.
  Regional Administrators shall  follow
the procedures below to setting sched-
ules of compliance in permits:
  (a) With  respect to any  discharge
which is not in compliance with appli-
cable effluent standards and limitations,
applicable water quality standards, and
other applicable requirements, the per-
mittee shall be. required to take specific
steps to  achieve compliance with the
following:
  (1) Any schedule of compliance con-
tained in:
  (i) Applicable  effluent standards and
limitations; or,
  (11) Water quality standards, If more
stringent; or,
  (ill) Any other legally applicable  re-
quirements, if more stringent.
  (2) In  the absence of any applicable
schedule  of compliance, in the shortest
reasonable period of time, such period
to be consistent with the guidelines and
requirements of the Act.
  (b) In  any case where the period of
time for  compliance specified in para-
graph  (a)  of this section exceeds  9
months, a schedule of compliance shall
be  specified in the permit which will set
forth Interim requirements and the dates
for their  achievement; in no event shall
more than 9 months elapee between in-
terim dates. If the time necessary for
completion of the  interim requirement
 (such as  the construction of a treatment
facility)  is more than 9 months and is
not readily divided into stages for com-
pletion, interim dates shall be specified
for the submission of reports of progress
toward completion  of the interim re-
quirement. For each permit schedule of
 compliance,  interim dates and the final
dote for compliance shall, to the extent
practicable,  fall  on the last day of the
months of March. June, September, and
 December.
   (c) Not later  than 14 days following
each interim date and the final date of
 compliance the permittee shall  provide
 the Regional Administrator with written
notice of the permittee's compliance or
 noncompliance with the interim or final
 requirements.
   (d) The Regional Administrator may,
 upon request of the applicant, and after
 public notice, revise or modify a schedule
 of compliance in an issued permit if he
 determines good*nd valid cause (such
 as an act of God, strike, flood, materials
 shortage, or other event over which the
 permittee has little or no control) exists
 for such revision. All revisions or modi-
 fications made pursuant to this subsec-
 tion during the  period ending 30 days
 prior to the date of preparation of such
 list, shall be Included In the list prepared
 by the Regional  Administrator pursuant
 to S 125.23(e) below.
    (e) On the last day of the months of
 February, May,  August, and November
 the  Regional Administrator shall pre-
 pare a list of all instances, as of 30 days
prior to the date of such report, of fail-
ure or refusal of a permittee to comply
with an interim or final requirement or
to notify the Regional Administrator of
compliance or noncompliance with each
Interim or final requirement (as required
pursuant to (b) above). Such list shall
be available to the public for inspection
and copying  and shall contain at least
the following information with respect to
each instance  of nonoompllance:
   (1) Name  and address of  each non-
complying permittee;
   (2)  A short description of each in-
stance of noncompliance (e.g., failure to
submit preliminary plans, 2-week delay
in  commencement of construction of
treatment facility;  failure to notify the
Regional  Administrator of compliance
with interim requirement to  complete
construction by June  30, etc.);
   (3)  A short description of actions or
proposed  actions  by  the permittee or
the Regional Administrator to comply
or enforce compliance with the Interim
or final requirement;  and
   (4)  Any   details   which   tend  to
explain or mitigate an Instance of non-
compliance with an interim or final re-
quirement (e.g., construction delayed due
to materials shortage, plan approval de-
layed by objections from State fish and
wildlife agency).
 § 125.24   Effluent limitations in permits.
   (a)  In the application  of  effluent
standards and limitations, water  quality
standards, and other applicable require-
ments, the Regional Administrator shall,
for each  permit,  specify average and
maximum daily quantitative limitations
for the level of pollutants in the author-
ized discharge in terms  of weight (ex-
cept pH,  temperature, radiation, and
any other pollutants  not appropriately
 expressed by weight, and except for dis-
 charges whose constituents cannot  be
 appropriately expressed by weight). The
 Regional Administrator may, in his dis-
cretion, in addition to the specification
 of  daily  quantitative  limitations  by
 weight, specify other limitations, such
 as average or maximum concentration
f limits, for the level of pollutants in the
 authorized discharge. Effluent limitations
 for multiproduct operations shall  provide
 for appropriate  waste variations from
 such plants. Where a schedule of  compli-
 ance Is included as a condition in a per-
 mit, effluent limitations shall be Included
 for the Interim period as well as for the
 period following  the final  compliance
 date.
    (b) Notwithstanding any other provi-
 sion in the regulations in this part, any
 point source the  construction of which
 is commenced after the date  of enact-
 ment of  the Federal Water  Pollution
 Control Act Amendments of  1972  and
 which is so constructed as to meet all
 applicable standards of performance (as
 defined in section  300 of the Act) shall
 not be subject to any more  stringent
 standard  of performance during a 10-
 year  period  beginning  on the  date  of
 completion of such construction  or dur-
 ing the period of depreciation or amorti-
 zation of  such facility for the purposes
                                 KOBAL MOISTM, VOL 38,  NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 22.  1973
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       13535
of section 167 or section 169 (or both)
of the Internal  Revenue Code of 1964,
whichever period ends first.
§ 125.25  Duration of permit*.
  <») No permit will IMU*. tor a period
lormor than B yours.
  < b) Permits of less than 5 years' dura-
tlan may Issue in appropriate cases and
Regional Administrators shall five treat
weight to the advice  of State or inter-
state water pollution control offlclala on
the appropriate  duration for particular
permits.
  ic) All permits will be for a fixed term.
§ 125.26  Special categoric* of permits.
  (a) Disposal of pollutants into wells.
  (1) If an  applicant for a  permit la
disposing or proposes to dispose of pollu-
tants into wells as part of a program to
meet the proposed terms and conditions
of a permit, the  Regional Administrator
shall specify additional terms and con-
ditions in the permit which shall (1) pro-
hibit the disposal, or (11) control the dis-
posal in order to prevent pollution  of
ground and surface water resources and
to protect the public health and welfare.
  (2) The Regional Administrator shall
utilize in his review of any permits pro-
posed to be issued for the disposal  of
pollutants into wells,  any policies, tech-
nical information, or  requirements, spe-
cified by the Administrator in regulations
issued pursuant to the Act or In directives
issued to regional offices.
  (b) Discharges from publicly  owned
treatment works.
  (1) If the permit is for a  discharge
from a publicly  owned treatment work,
the Regional Administrator shall require
the permittee to provide notice  to the
Regional Administrator of the following:
  (i) Any new introduction of pollutants
into such treatment works from a source
which would be a new source as defined in
section 306 of the Act if such source were
discharging pollutants;
  (ti) Any new introduction  of pollu-
tants which exceeds 10,000 gallons on any
1 day into such  treatment works from
a source which would be subject to sec-
tion 301 of the Act if such source were
discharging pollutants; and,
  (ill) Any substantial change in vol-
ume or character of pollutants being in-
troduced into such treatment works by a
source introducing pollutants into such
works at the time of issuance of the per-
mit.
  (2) Such notice shall include informa-
tion on:
  (i) The Quality and quantity of efflu-
ent to be introduced into such treatment
works, and.
  (11) Any anticipated impact of such
change In the quantity or quality of ef-
fluent to be discharged from such pub-
licly owned treatment works.
  (3) The  permittee shall require any
Industrial user of such treatment works
to comply with the requirements  of sec-
tions 204 The permittee shall require any in-
dustrial user of storm sewers to comply
with the requirement of Motion 90S of
the Act.
§ 195.27  Monitoring, recording, and re-
     porting.
  (a) Any permit  shall be subject to
such monitoring requirements as may be
reasonably required by the Regional Ad-
ministrator, including the installation,
use, and maintenance  of  monitoring
equipment or methods (including, where
appropriate,    biological   monitoring
methods).
  (b) Any discharge which:
  (1) Is not a minor discharge; or
  (2) The Regional  Administrator re-
quires to be monitored; or
  (3) Contains   toxic   pollutants  for
which an effluent standard has been es-
tablished by the Administrator pursuant
to section 307(a) of the Act.  shall be
monitored by the permittee for at least
the following:
  (i) Flow (In gallons per day); and,
  (ii) All of the following pollutants;
  (A) Pollutants (measured either di-
rectly or indirectly through the use of
accepted  correlation   coefficients  or
equivalent   measurements)  which  are
subject to reduction or elimination under
the terms and conditions of the permit;
  (B) Pollutants which  the   Regional
Administrator finds, on the basis of In-
formation available to him, could have
a significant impact  on water quality;
  (C) Pollutants specified by  the  Ad-
ministrator, in regulations issued pursu-
ant to the Act, as subject to monitoring;
  (c) Each  effluent flow or  pollutant
required to be  monitored pursuant to
paragraph (b)  of this section shall be
monitored at  intervals sufficiently  fre-
quent to yield  data which reasonably
characterizes the nature of the discharge
of the  monitored effluent  flow or  pol-
lutant.  Variable  effluent  flows and  pol-
lutant levels may be monitored at more
frequent intervals  than  relatively  con-
stant effluent  flow  and pollutant levels
which may be monitored at less frequent
intervals.
  (d) The Regional Administrator shall
specify  recording requirements for any
permit which requires monitoring of the
authorized discharge consistent with the
following:
  (1) The permittee shall maintain rec-
ords of  all  Information resulting from
any monitoring activities required of him
in his permit;
  (2) Any records of monitoring activi-
ties and results shall include for all
samples;
  (i) The date, exact place, and time of
sampling;
  (11) The  dates  analyses were  per-
formed;
  (iii) Who performed the analyses;
  (iv)  The  analytical techniques/meth-
ods used; and
  (v) The results of such analyses;
  (3) The permittee shall be required to
 retain for a minimum of 3 years any
 records of monitoring activities and re-
 sults including all original strip chart
 recordings  for continuous monitoring
 instrumentation and  calibration  and
 maintenance records. This period of re-
 tention  shall  be  extended during  the
 course   of  any  unresolved   lltivntlnn
 regarding  the  discharge of pollutant*
 by the  permittee or  when  requested
 by the  Regional Administrator.
   (e) The Regional Administrator shall
 require  periodic  reporting (at  a fre-
 quency of not less than once per year)
 on the  proper  NPDE8 reporting form of
 monitoring results obtained by  a per-
 mittee  pursuant to monitoring require-
 ments in a permit. Such  reporting pe-
 riods, whose length shall be determined
 by the Regional Administrator shall end
 on the  last day of March, June, Sep-
 tember, and/or December.
      Subpart  D—Notice and Public
               Participation
 § 125.31  Formulation of  tentative de-
     terminations and draft permits.
   (a) The regional staff shall formulate
 and  prepare  tentative determinations
 with respect to a permit in advance of
 public notice of the proposed Issuance or
 denial of the permit. Such tentative de-
 terminations  shall Include at  least the
 following:
   (1)  A proposed determination to issue
 or to deny a  permit  for the  discharge
 described in the application; and,
   (2)  If the determination proposed in
 paragraph  (a) (1)  of this section Is to
 issue the permit, the following additional
 tentative determinations;
   (i) Proposed effluent limitations for
 those pollutants proposed to be limited;
   (11) A proposed schedule of compli-
 ance,  as provided in  § 125.23 of these
 regulations, including interim dates and
 requirements,  for meeting the proposed
 effluent  limitations;  and,
   (ill)  A brief description of any other
 proposed special conditions (other than
 those required by  $ 125.22(a) of the reg-
 ulations in this part)  which will have a
 significant impact upon the  discharge
 described in the application.
   (b) The regional staff shall organize
 the tentative  determinations  prepared
 pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-
 tion Into a draft permit.
 §125.32  Public notice.
   (a) Public notice  of every  complete
 application for a  permit shall be circu-
 lated In a manner designed to inform In-
 terested and potentially interested per-
 sons of the discharge and of the pro-
 posed determination  to issue or to deny
 a permit for the discharge. Public notice
 of hearings shall be circulated in  a
 manner designed to  inform  Interested
 and potentially Interested persons of the
 discharge and of the intention to hold a
 hearing on the matter of the proposal
 to issue or deny  a permit for the dis-
 charge. Procedures for the circulation
 of public notice shall Include at least the
. following:
      Ho. I
                                MDERAL HOOTER, VOL  38, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 22,  1973
-------
13536
     RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  (1) Notice shall be circulated within
the geographical area of the proposed
discharge; such circulation shall Include
any one of the following:
  (i)  Posting in  the post  office  and
public places of the municipality nearest
the premises of  the  applicant in  which
the effluent  source is located;
  (ill Posting near the entrance  to the
applicant's  premises  and  in  nearby
places: or
   Publishing  in local newspapers
and  periodicals,  or. If appropriate, in a
daily newspaper of general circulation;
except that  public  notice of hearings
shall be published in at least one news-
paper of general circulation within the
geographical area of the  discharge in
all cases.
  12) Notice shall  be  mailed  to the
applicant and to  any person or group
upon request; and
  (3) The Regional  Administrator shall
add  the  name of  any person or group
upon request to  a mailing list to receive
copies of notices for  all  applications
within the State or within a certain •geo-
graphical area.
  (4) Regional Administrators shall no-
tify Federal and State fish, shellfish, and
wildlife resource agencies and other ap-
propriate government agencies of each
complete  application for a permit and
of hearings  and  shall provide such agen-
cies an opportunity to submit their writ-
ten views and recommendations on each
complete  application.
   (b) (1) Where notice Is being given of
an application for a  permit, the Regional
Administrator shall  provide a period of
not  less than 30 days following the date
of the public notice during which time
interested  persons  may  submit their
written views concerning  the  tentative
determinations or request that a hearing
be held. All written comments submitted
during the 30-day comment period shall
be retained by the Regional Administra-
tor  and considered  in the formulation
of his final determinations with  respect
to the application. Extensions of time for
the  receipt of comments  following the
end  of  the comment  period may  be
granted  by the Regional Administrator
when the public interest  warrants.
   (2) Where notice Is being given of a
hearing,  the  Regional  Administrator
 shall provide a period of  not less than
 30 days following the date of the public
notice during which time interested per-
 sons may  prepare  themselves  for the
 hearing.
   (c) The  contents of public notice of
 an application shall include at least the
 following:
   (l) Name, address, phone number of
 regional office Issuing the public notice;
   (2)  Name   and  address  of  each
 applicant;
   (3) Brief description of each appli-
 cant's activities or operations which re-
 sult in the discharge described In the
 application including  a  statement of
 whether the application pertains to new
 or existing  discharges (e.g., new munici-
 pal waste treatment giant, existing steel
 manufacturing, drainage  from existing
 mining  activities);
  (4) Name of waterway to which each
discharge is made and a short descrip-
tion of the location of each  discharge
on the waterway;
  (5) A statement of the regional staff's
tentative determination to issue or deny
a permit for the discharge described in
the application.
  <6> A brief description of the proce-
dures for the formulation of final deter-
minations, including  the 30-day  com-
ment period required by paragraph  (b)
of this section and any other  means by
wliich interested persons may Influence
or comment upon those determinations;
   (7)  Address  and phone number of
premises  at  which Interested persons
may obtain further Information, request
a copy of the fact sheet prepared pursu-
ant  to  § 125.33, request a copy of  the
draft  permit   prepared  pursuant   to
} 125.31, and inspect and  copy forms
and related documents;  and
   (8)  Where  applicable,  a  statement
that confidential information has been
received that  may be used to  determine
some of the conditions for the permit.
   (d)  The contents of public notice of
any hearing shall  include  at least  the
following:
   (1) Name, address, and phone number
of  regional office holding the hearing;
   (2) Name and address of each appli-
cant whose application  win be consid-
ered at the hearing;
   (3)  Name of waterway to which each
discharge is made  and a short descrip-
tion of the location of each discharge on
the waterway;
   (4) A brief reference to the public no-
tice issued for each application. Includ-
ing Identification number  and date of
issuance;
   (5) Information regarding  the  time
and location for the  hearing;
   (6) The purpose of the hearing;
   (7) A concise statement of the issues
raised  by the persons requesting  the
hearing;
   (8) Address  and  phone number of
premises at which Interested persons  may
obtain further information,  request a
copy of each draft permit prepared pur-
suant to ! 125.31, request a copy of each
fact sheet prepared pursuant to f 125.33,
and inspect and copy forms and related
documents;
   (9) A brief description of the nature
of the hearing, including the rules  and
procedures to be followed; and
   (10) Where  applicable,  a  statement
 that confidential information has been
 received that may be used  to determine
 some of the conditions for the permit.
   (e) The Regional  Administrator, tn
 his discretion, may include in any notice
 of application for a permit under para-
 graph (c) of this section a notice of hear-
 ing in accordance with paragraph (d) of
 this section, whether or not any request
 for such hearing shall have been submit-
 ted to him.
    (f) Any public notice issued under this
 section may describe more than one dis-
 charge except  that each discharge will
 be  described separately.
    (g) If individual States, in connection
 with applications for certification re-
quired by section 401 of the Act, wish to
enter into agreements for Joint Federal-
State public notice concerning permits,
the Regional Administrator  may, after
consulting  with headquarters, approve
mutually satisfactory  agreements con-
sistent with this section.
§ 125.33  Fact sheet*.
  (a) For every discharge which has a
total volume of more  than  500,000  gal
on  any day  of  the year  the  Regional
Administrator shall prepare and, fol-
lowing public notice, shall send to  the
applicant, and upon request to any other
person, a fact sheet with respect to the
application described In the public  no-
tice.  The contents of fact sheets shall
include at least the following  informa-
tion:
  (1)  A sketch or detailed  description
of the location of the discharge described
in the application;
  (2)  A quantitative description of the
discharge described tn  the  application
which includes at least the following:
  (i) The rate of  frequency  of the pro-
posed discharge; if the discharge is con-
tinuous, the average daily flow in gallons
per day or million gallons per day,  and
where appropriate the'maximum  and
minimum flow in gallons per day or mil-
lion gallons per day;
   (ii) The average summer and winter
temperatures of the discharge in degrees
Fahrenheit and where appropriate the
maximum and minimum temperature in
 degrees Fahrenheit; and
   (ill) The average  dally discharge  in
pounds per day, and milligrams per liter
 where appropriate, of any pollutants
 wh^ch are present in significant quan-
 tities or which are subject to limitations
or  prohibition  under section  301,  302,
 306, or 307 of  the Act  and regulations
 published thereunder;
   (3) The tentative  determinations  re-
 quired under §  125.31  of the regulations
 in this part.
   (4) A brief citation, including a brief
 identification of the uses  for which  the
 receiving waters have been classified, of
 the water quality standards and effluent
 standards and limitations applied to the
 proposed discharge; and,
   (5) A more detailed description of the
 procedures for  the formulation of final
 determinations than  that given  in  the
 public notice including:
   (i) The term of the 30-day comment
 period required by § 125.32 of these regu-
 lations and the address where  comments
 will be received;
   (ii) Procedures for requesting a hear-
 ing and the nature thereof; and,
   (iii) Any  other procedures  by which
 the public may  participate in the formu-
 lation of the final determinations.
   (b) The Regional Administrator shall
 add the name  of any person or group
 upon request to a mailing list to receive
 copies of fact sheets.
   (c) The Regional Administrator shall
 transmit one copy of each fact sheet to
 appropriate officials of Federal and State
 fish,  shellfish,  and  wildlife  resource
 agencies.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl.  38, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 22,  1973
-------
                                            RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                      13537
9 125.34  Hearings and appeal*.
  (a)  Definition!.—(1)  "Party"  shall
mean the officials designated by the Ad-
ministrator or the RcBlonal Adminlstra-
tor to prepare permits for IMUMUM, the
applicant for a permit, and any person
who flies a request for hearing or  a re-
quest to be a party pursuant to para-
graph (c) of this section.
  (2) "Person"  shall  mean  the State
water pollution  control  agency  of any
State or States In which the discharge or
proposed discharge shall originate or
which may be affected by such discharge,
the applicant for a permit, and any for-
eign country,  Federal  agency, or  other
person or  persons  having an interest
which may be affected.
  (3) Hie term "Administrator" means
the Administrator, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, or any officer or employee
of the Agency to whom authority may be
delegated to act in his stead, including,
where appropriate, a judicial officer.
  (4)' The term "judlcal officer" means
an  officer or employee of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency appointed aa
a judicial officer, pursuant to these rules
who shall meet  the qualifications and
perform functions as herein provided.
  (1)  Office.—There may be designated
for the purposes of these regulations one
or more judicial officers. As work requires,
there may be a judicial officer designated
to act for the purposes  of a particular
case.
  (11) Qualifications.—A judicial officer
may be a permanent or temporary em-
ployee of the Agency who performs other
duties for the Agency. Such judicial offi-
cer shall not be employed by the office of
enforcement and general counsel or the
office of air and water programs or have
any connection with the preparation or
presentation of evidence for a hearing.
  (ill)   Functions.—The Administrator
may delegate any or part of his authority
to act in a given case under this section
to a judicial officer. The administrator
may delegate his authority to make find-
ings of fact and draw conclusions of law
in a particular proceeding, provided that
this delegation  shall not preclude the
judicial officer from referring any motion
or case to the Administrator when the
judicial officer determines such referral
to  be  appropriate.  The Administrator.
in deciding a case himself, may consult
with and assign the preliminary drafting
of conclusions of law and findings of fact
to any judicial officer.
  (5) The term "regional hearing clerk"
means an employee of the Environmental
Protection Agency designated by the Re-
gional Administrator to establish  a re-
pository for all  documents relating  to
hearings under this section.
  (b) Public hearings.—(1) Where the
Regional Administrator finds a signifi-
cant degree of public Interest in a pro-
posed permit or group of permits, be may
hold a  public heating to consider such
permit or permit,. »ublic notice of such
hearings shall be g>en in the manner
specified in g 125.32.
   (2) Hearings held pursuant  to this
paragraph shall be conducted by the Re-
gional Administrator, or his designee, in
an orderly and expeditious manner.
  (3) Any person shall be permitted to
submit oral or written statements  and
data  concerning  the proposed permit.
The   Regional  Administrator, or  hid
deslgnee, shall have discretion to fix rea-
sonable limits upon the time allowed for
oral  statements,  and  may require the
submission of statements in writing.
  (4) Following the  public hearing, the
Regional Administrator may make such
modifications in the terms and condi-
tions of proposed permits as may be ap-
propriate  and shall  issue  or  deny the
permit. The Regional Administrator shall
provide a notice  of such issuance or
denial to any person  who participated
in the public hearing and to appropriate
persons on the mailing list established
under  § 125.32(a) (3). Such notice shall
briefly indicate any significant changes
which have been  made from terms and
conditions set forth in the draft permit.
Any permit  issued  following a  public
hearing shall become  effective 30 days
after the date it is issued by the Regional
Administrator, unless the Regional Ad-
ministrator grants a request for an ad-
judicatory hearing  pursuant to  para-
graph (c)  of this section.
  (c) Adjudicator?   hearings.—ID
Within 30 days  following issuance of
public notice of a permit application pur-
suant to  { 125.32, or, if a public bearing
is held pursuant  to 8125.34(b), within
20 days  following the issuance of the
notice provided in  $ 125.34(b) (4), any
person may submit to the Regional Ad-
ministrator a request for an adjudicator/
hearing to consider the proposed permit
and  its conditions. If the request for an
adjudicatory hearing 'Is granted in ac-
cordance  with §12S.34(f),  any person
may submit a request to be a party within
30 days  after the date of publication
of public notice of an adjudicatory hear-
ing in a newspaper of general circulation
as required by § 125.32.
  <2) Requests  for  and  adjudicatory
hearing and requests to be a party under
this  paragraph shall:
  (i) State the name and address of the
person making such request;
  (ii)  Identify the  interest  of the re-
quester, and any person represented by
issuance or nonissuance of the permit;
  (ill) Identify any other persons whom
the requester represents;
  (iv) Include an agreement by the re-
quester, and any person represented by
the requester, to be subject to examina-
tion and  cross-examination,  and in the
case of a corporation, to make any em-
ployee available  for  examination and
cross-examination at  his own expense,
upon the request of the presiding officer,
on his own motion or on the motion  of
any  party.
  (3)  In addition to the information re-
quired under § 125.34(c) (2), any request
for an adjudicatory hearing shall state
with particularity the reasons for the
request,  and the issues proposed  to  be
considered at the hearing.
  (4)  In addition to the information re-
quired under § 125.34(c) (2), any request
to be a party shall state the position  of
the requestor  on the issues to be con-
sidered at the hearing.
  (d) Filing and service.—(1)  All docu-
ments or papers required or authorized
to be filed, shall be flled with tliu regional
hoarlntr dork,  exoopt as oth«rwl«t» lioretn
provided. Except, for requwUf lor uit ml-
Judicntory hearing  or request, to  be a
party, at the same time that a party flies
documents or  papers with the clerk, it
shall serve upon all other parties copies
thereof, with  a certificate of service on
each document or paper, including those
filed with the  regional hearing  clerk.
Filing shall be deemed timely if received
by the regional hearing clerk within the
time allowed by  this section.
  (2) In addition to copies served on all
other parties,  each party shall file with
the  regional   hearing  clerk an  original
and two copies of all papers filed in con-
nection with an adjudicatory hearing.
  (e) Time.—In computing any period
of time prescribed or allowed by the reg-
ulations in this part, except as otherwise
provided, the day  of  the act or  event
from which the designated period of time
begins to run  shall not be included. Sat-
urdays, Sundays, and  holidays, shall be
Included in computing the time allowed
for the filing of any document or paper,
except that when such time expires on a
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, such
period shall be  extended to include the
next following business day.
  (f) Notice of hearing.—Within 5 days
following the  expiration of the time al-
lowed by } 125.34(c) (1) for submitting  a
request for an adjudicatory hearing the
Regional Administrator shall  determine
whether such request meets the require-
ments of  §125.34(e). If any request
meets such requirements and sets forth
material  issues relevant to  the  ques-
tion whether  a permit should be issued,
and what conditions  to such  permit
would  be  required  to  carry out  the
provisions of  the Act, the matter shall
be   assigned  promptly  for   hearing:
Provided, That  if the Regional Admin-
istrator  holds a public hearing  under
$ 125.34(b), no request for an adjudica-
tory hearing  shall be  timely until  after
the conclusion  of such public hearing.
The Regioml Administrator  shall  treat
all other lequests for a hearing as re-
quests to be a party, and shall grant any
such request  meeting the requirements
of § 125.34 (c) <2) and (c) (4). The hear-
ing shall be held in the State in which
the discharge  or proposed ''i Charge shall
occur, or at such other at" cssible location
as  is appropriate. The Regional Admin-
istrator shall  issue  public notice of such
hearing  in  the manner specified  in
§ 125.32. The hearing shall  take place
not less than  30 days  after the issuance
of public notice  of such hearing.
   (g) Additional parties.—The Regional
Administrator shall review all  requests
to  be  a  party  submitted pursuant to
S 125.34(c). He  shall grant any request
meeting the  requirements of that sec-
tion. Following the expiration of the time
provided by § 125.34 (c) for the submis-
sion of requests to be a party, any per-
son may file a motion for leave to inter-
vene in  an  adjudicatory hearing. A
                                FEDERAL MGl^TEU, VOL.  38, NO, 98—TUESDAY, MAY 22,  1973
-------
13538
                                            IU1ES AND  REGULATIONS
motion must set forth the grounds for
the proposed intervention and the posi-
tion and interest of the movant in the
proceeding. A motion for leave to inter-
vene in a hearing must ordinarily be filed
prior to the commencement of the first
prehearing conference. Any motion filed
after that time must contain, in addition
to the information set forth in { 125.34
(c), a statement of good cause for the
failure to file the motion  prior to the
commencement of the first prehearing
conference and  shall be  granted  only
upon a  finding (1) that extraordinary
circumstances justify the granting of the
motion, and (2) that the intervenor shall
be bound by agreements, arrangements
and other matters previously made in the
proceeding.
   ConsoSdctto*.—The Regional Ad-
ministrator, in his discretion, may con-
solidate two or more proceedings to be
held " rnVir thi» section whenever it ap-
pears that this will expedite or simplify
consideration of the issues. Consolidation
shau not affect the right of any party
to  raise  tames  that could have  been
raised If coneondatton had not occurred.
At  th* ftmrlmkiii of proceedings wtwinr
this section, the Regional Administrator

  (1) AepresenteHoo^—Parties  may be
represented  by  counsel or other  duly
qualified representative.
  (j) Duties and authorities of presiding
officer.—Presiding officers  at adjudica-
tory hearings shall  have  the  duty to
conduct  fair and impartial hearings, to
take all  necessary action to avoid delay
in the disposition of proceedings, and to
maintain order.  They  shall have  all
powers necessary to that end, including
the following:
  (1) To administer oaths and affirma-
tions;
  (2) To rule upon  offers  of proof and
receive relevant evidence;
  (3) To regulate the course of the hear-
ings and the conduct of the parties and
their counsel therein;
   (4) To hold prehearing conferences In
accordance with ; 125.34 ;
  (5) To consider and rule upon all pro-
cedural  and other motions appropriate
in such proceedings;
   (6) To take any action authorized by
these regulations or m conformant* with
law.
   (k)  Prehearino conference.—(1)  In
the discretion of the presiding officer, a
prehearing  conference or conferences
may be held prior to any adjudicatory
hearing.  All parties will  be given rea-
sonable  notice of time and  location of
 any such conference. In the discretion
 of  the  presiding  officer, • persons  other
 than parties may attend. At the confer-
 ence, the presiding officer may:
   (i> obtain stipulations and admis-
 sions, and identify disputed issues of fact
 and law;
    (11) Set a hearing schedule which in-
 cludes definite or tentative times for as
 many of the following as are deemed
 necessary by the presiding officer:
    (A) Oral and written statements;
     Consider limitation of the num-
                                      ber of expert and other witnesses;
                                        (v) Consider the procedure to be fol-
                                      lowed at the hearing; and
                                        (vl) Consider any other matter  that
                                      may expedite the bearing or aid in the
                                      disposition of the matter.
                                        (2) The results of any conference shall
                                      be summarised in writing by the presid-
                                      ing officer and made part of the record.
                                        (1) Exchange of witness litts and doc-
                                      uments.—At a prehearing conference or
                                      within some reasonable time set by the
                                      presiding officer at a prehearing confer-
                                      ence, each party shall make available to
                                      the other parties the names of the expert
                                      and other witnesses, he expects to can,
                                      together with a brief narrative summary
                                      of their expected testimony. Copies of
                                      aD ilitf isiiT"fo «JMJ exhibits which be ex-
                                      pects to Introduce into evidence shall be
                                      marked for identification as ordered by
                                      the  presiding officer. Thereafter,  wit-
                                      nesses,  documents,  or exhibits may be
                                      added and narrative summaries of ex-
                                      pected  testimony  amended only upon
                                      motion by a party.
                                        (m) Evidence.—(I)   The   presiding
                                      officer shall admit all relevant and mate-
                                      rial evidence, except- evidence that  is
                                      unduly  repetitious. Relevant and mate-
                                      rial evidence  may be received at  any
                                      bearing even though   and
 (4) of this section, limited to those Issues
 identified by 'the Administrator.
    (3) The appeal shall be in the form of
 a brief, filed within 39 days after notice
 of the decision of the  Regional Admin-
 istrator or, where the Administrator  re-
 views  a  decision  of   the   Regional
 Administrator on his own motion, within
 30 days after the Administrator forwards
 the statement of issues under paragraph
  (p) (2)  of  this section. The brief shall
 contain, in  the  order  indicated,   the
 following:
    (i) A  subject index  of the matter in
 the brief,  with page references, and a
 table of cases, textbooks, statutes,  and
 other  material cited,  with  page refer-
  ences thereto;
    (11) A concise statement  of the case;
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38,  NO. 98—TUESDAY,  MAY M, 1973
-------
                                            RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                      13539
  (ill) A specification  of  the  questions
Intended to be urged, including any ob-
jections to rulings of the presiding offi-
cer, to the validity of facts officially no-
ticed, or to any matter In the decision of
the Regional Administrator.
   The argument presenting clearly
the points of fact and law relied upon
In support of the position taken on each
question, with specific references  to toe
record and to statutory or other material
relied upon; and,
  (v) A proposed  decision for the Ad-
ministrator's consideration hi lieu of the
decision of the Regional Administrator.
  (4) Within 10 days after the expira-
tion  of .time for filing briefs under par-
agraph (p) (3) of this section, any party
may file a reply brief to any brief or
briefs submitted by any other party. Suck
reply briefs shall follow the format pre-
scribed in paragraph (p) (3) of this sec-
tion, except that the proposed decision
of the Administrator may be omitted.
  (q) Decision upon appeal.—(1) Upon
appeal from an Initial decision, the Ad-
ministrator shall consider such parts of
the record as are cited  or as may be
necessary to resolve the issues presented
and may, hi his discretion, exercise any
of the powers specified In  g 125.34(J).
  (2) In rendering his decision, the Ad-
ministrator shall adopt,  modify,  or set
aside the findings, conclusions,  and deci-
sion contained In the decision of the
Regional Administrator,  and  shall in-
clude hi his decision a  statement  of the
reasons or basis for his action.
  (3) In those cases where the Admin-
istrator believes that he requires further
information or additional views  of the
parties as  to the form and content of
the  decision to be  rendered, the Ad-
ministrator, in his discretion, may with-
hold final action -pending the receipt of
such additional information or views. The
Administrator may, In his discretion, al-
low oral  argument on  appeal  or  review
of a decision of the Regional  Adminis-
trator.
  (4) The decision of the Administrator
on  appeal shall  become effective  as
specified by him therein or 20 days after
the date  of the decision, whichever first
occurs; however, the Administrator may
In his discretion stay the operation of
his decision pending judicial review. No-
tice  of the Administrator's decision on
appeal shall  be given  to all  parties.
§ 125.35    Public accew to information.
  (a) Certifications  Issued pursuant to
section 401 of the Act, the comments of
all governmental agencies on  a permit
application, draft permits prepared pur-
suant to S 125.31, and all Information and
data provided by an applicant or a per-
mittee Identifying the nature and  fre-
quency of a discharge shall be available
to the public without restriction. All other
information (other than  effluent data)
which may be submitted by an applicant
In connection with a permit application
or which may be furnished by  a permit-
tee hi connection with required periodic
reports shall also be available to the pub-
Uo  unless the  applicant or  permittee
specifically Identifies and is able to dem-
onstrate  to the satisfaction of the Re-
gional Administrator  or his authorized
representative that the disclosure of such
information or a particular part thereof
to the general public would divulge meth-
ods or processes entitled to protection as
trade secrets.
  (b)  Where the applicant or permittee
is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Regional Administrator or his au-
thorized  representative  that the disclo-
sure of the information or a particular
part thereof  (other than  effluent data)
would result in methods or processes en-
titled to protection as  trade secrets being
divulged,  the Regional Administrator
shall treat the information or the par-
ticular part (other than effluent data) as
confidential in accordance with the pur-
poses of  section 1905 of title 18  of the
United States Code and not release it to
any unauthorized person: Provided, how-
ever, That if access to such information
is subsequently requested by any person,
the procedures specified In section 2 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions will be complied with. Such Infor-
mation may be disclosed to other officers,
employees, or authorized representatives
of the United States concerned with car-
rying  out the Act or when  relevant
in any proceeding under the Act.
  (c) Where the applicant or permit-
tee is unable to demonstrate to the satis-
faction of the Regional Administrator
or his authorized representative that the
disclosure of the Information or  a par-
ticular part thereof (other than effluent
data)  would result in methods or proc-
esses  entitled to  protection as trade
secrets being divulged, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall  notify the  applicant
or permittee of his decision. He shall also
notify the applicant  or permittee that
failufeit* request within 10 days a Gen-
eral Counsel's determination shall result
in the information in question being re-
leased to the public.  Where  within the
10-day period the applicant or permittee
requests  a General Counsel's determina-
tion, the Regional Administrator shall
request advice from the office of Gen-
eral Counsel stating the reasons that he
believes  that the  information  will not
result in methods or processes entitled to
protection as trade  secrets being di-
vulged. A copy of  the Regional Admin-
istrator's request shall be transmitted
simultaneously to the applicant or per-
mittee. The General Counsel shall deter-
mine whether the information in ques-
tion would if revealed divulge methods
or  processes entitled to  protection as
trade secrets. In making such determi-
nation, the General Counsel shall con-
sider  any additional information  re-
ceived by the Office of General Counsel
within 30 days of receipt of the request
from the Regional Administrator. If the
General  Counsel  determines that  the
Information being considered would not
If revealed divulge methods or processes
entitled  to protection as  trade secrets,
he shall so advise the  Regional Adminis-
trator and shall notify the permittee or
applicant claiming trade secrecy of such
determination  by  certified  mail.  No
sooner than 30 days following the mail-
ing of such notice, the Regional Admin-
istrator shall  make  available  to  the
public  upon  request the  information
determined not to constitute methods or
processes entitled to protection as trade
secrets.
  (d) Notwithstanding  paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section,  the Administra-
tor may withhold any information from
tiie public when the release of  such in-
formation  would  violate  statutes or
Executive orders or regulations issued
pursuant  thereto,  concerned  with the
national security.
       Subpart E—Miscellaneous

§ 125.41  Objections  to permit by an-
     other State.
  (a) Whenever  following receipt of the
certification  described  in  § 125.15 the
Regional Administrator determines that
a discharge may affect the quality of the
waters of any State other than the State
that made the certification, the Regional
Administrator  shall, within 30  days of
such  certification, notify  such  other
State  and  the  applicant  of  his de-
termination and  Shall transmit to  such
other State a copy of the fact sheet de-
scribed in  § 125.33  and  upon request,  a
copy of the  application and a  copy of
the draft permit prepared pursuant to
S 125.31. If such other State determines,
within 60 days from the date notice was
received from the Regional Administra-
tor, that  the discharge will affect the
quality of its waters so  as to violate any
water quality requirement in such State,
such other State shall  within  such 60-
day period notify the Regional Adminis-
trator in writing of its  objection to the
issuance of a permit and request a public
hearing on the objection. Upon receipt of
such request, the Regional Administra-
tor shall hold a  hearing in conformity
with § 125.34 herein. Based upon the
record, a permit shall issue, provided that
if the imposition of conditions can not
assure compliance with the applicable
water quality requirements of all of the
affected  States,  the permit   shall be
denied.
   (b)  Each affected State shall be af-
forded an opportunity to submit written
recommendations to  the Regional Ad-
ministrator which the Regional Admin-
istrator may  Incorporate into  the  per-
mits if issued. Should the Regional Ad-
ministrator  fail  to Incorporate  any
written recommendations thus received,
he shall provide to the  affected State or
States a written explanation of his rea-
sons for failing  to accept  any of the
written recommendations.
   (c) Where  an interstate  agency has
authority over waters that  may be af-
fected by the issuance of a permit,  it
shall be afforded the rights of a  State
pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.

§ 125.42  Other legal action.
   (a)  Section 402(a) (4) of the Act pro-
vides that "permits issued under  this
title shall  [also] be deemed to be  per-
                                FHWAl IKHSTER, VOL 38, NO.  98—TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973
-------
13540
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
mlts Issued under section 13 of the Act
of March 3, 1899," (the Refute Act.)
Discharges without a permit or In viola-
tion of permit terms and conditions may
result in the institution of  proceedings
under the Refuse Act.
  (b) Except  iw  provided  in  section
4021k.) of the Act. the mere tiling of an
application for a permit to discharge into
waters covered by the NPDES will not
preclude legal action in appropriate cases
for violation of the Act and section 13
of the Act of March 3. 1899  (the Refuse
Act). The institution of either a civil or
criminal action by the United States may
not preclude the acceptance or continued
processing of a permit application.

§ 125.43  Environmental  impact •tote-
     mem*.

  Section 511(c) (1) of the Act provides
that with the exception of  permits for
new sources as denned In  section  306,
no  action of  the Administrator taken
pursuant  to the  Act (concerning per-
mits) shaU be deemed a major Federal
action significantly *y«*titig the quality
of the human  environment within the
meaning of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
§125.44  final decision of the Regional
     AdminlstraUir.
  (a) Where  no request for a  public
hearing or an adjudlcatory hearing has
been granted, no less than 30 days after
the date of public notice- of a permit
application  required  by 1125.32  the
Regional Administrator (hall, after con-
sideration of (l) the tentative determi-
nations  and  draft  permit  prepared
pursuant to 1126.31; (2)  any comments,
objections,  and recommendations re-
ceived from the applicant, Involved Fed-
eral, State, local and foreign government
agencies, and the public;  and (3) the re-
quirements and policies expressed In the
Act and these regulations; make deter-
minations with respect to each permit.
  (b) Where the determination  of the
Regional Administrator pursuant to par-
agraph (a)  of this section with respect
to any permit, is substantially unchanged
from the tentative determinations and
draft  permit  prepared pursuant   to
S 125.31,  the  Regional  Administrator
shall issue or deny the permit as appro-
priate, and such action shall be the final
action of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
  (c) Where the determinations of the
Regional Administrator pursuant to par-
agraph (a)  of this section with respect
to any permit are  substantially changed
from  the tentative determinations and
draft  permit  prepared  pursuant   to
{125.31,   the  Regional  Administrator
shall forward his revised determinations
to the applicant, and shall give public
notice of such revised determinations In
the  nuuuiur mwclfled  in  1125.32.  If
within 30 (HvM following the date of mirli
notice, no request for an adjndlcntory
heartnic  meet Inn  the regulronicMta  of
5 12D.34(c> find subsection  td>  of this
section has been received, the determi-
nations of the Regional Administrator
shall  become final and he shall issue or
deny  the permit as appropriate and such
action shall be  the  final action of  the
Environmental Protection Agency: Pro-
vided, The Regional Administrator may
decide to hold a public hearing pursuant
to {125.34(b).
  (d)  A request for an adjudlcatory
hearing  under this section  will only be
granted when such request meets all the
requirements of { 125.34 (c) and such re-
quest pertains to the substantial changes
proposed with respect to such permit by
the Regional Administrator.
  (e) When a hearing in held pursuant
to 1126.34, final  actions of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency will be made
pursuant to that section.
  [PR Doc.73-10062 Filed 6-31-73:8:45 am]
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 98—TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973
-------
                 V.3

                 WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1974
                 WASHINGTON, D.C.

                 Volume 39 • Number 143

                 PART I!
                 ENVIRONMENTAL
                    PROTECTION
                      AGENCY
                      NATIONAL
                 POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
                  ELIMINATION SYSTEM

                    Miscellaneous Amendments
No. 143—Pt. II	1
-------
 2707H
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  Title 40—Protection of the Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
                (328-3)
   PART  125—NATIONAL POLLUTANT
   DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
       Miscellaneous Amendments
  On  May  23,  1973. regulations  were
promulgated and published in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER (38 FR 13528) establishing
procedures for issuance of National Pol-
lutant  Discharge  Elimination   System
• NPDES) permits pursuant  to  section
402 of  the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol  Art, as  amended (the "Act"). The
purpose  of  those  regulations was  ex-
plained in the preamble to the proposed
regulations in the FEDERAL REGISTER for
January 11.1973 (38 FR 1362).
  Experience with this  part has indi-
cated that certain changes are needed,
particularly  in §5 125.32 and 125.34 to
ensure the fair and orderly administra-
tive  process  of the  Issuance of NPDES
pennits.
  The changes In Part 125 effective today
are intended to  clarify  and amend the
Agency procedures  relating to  the Is-
suance of NPDES permits and apply to
nil  permit applications  or requests for
modification of permits now or In the
future  flled  pursuant to the Act and to
which  this  Part applies.  The essential
changes  in  the  procedures  are briefly
described below.
  (1) The requirement for pubic notice
of each completed permit application has
been changed to require public notice of
(he proposed issuance, denial or  modifi-
cation  of a  permit. Further, the notice
hns been expanded to require disclosure
of any Intent to issue a permit contain-
ing a variance from the general  effluent
limitations and a comparison of the dis-
charge proposed  to be permitted and the
discharge permitted under such  limita-
tions
  t2) The discretion of the Regional Ad-
ministrator  to hold public hearings on
pioposed penults has been  modified to
require the  holding  of  public hearings
where  there is significant public Inter-
est in the permit.
  *3) The requirement for a party  to
request an adjudicatory  hearing prior  to
the  Regional  Administrator's   deter-
mination with regard to the issuance of a
permit has  been amended so that the
proposed permit will have been received
by  the applicant, during  the period  of
time in which an interested person may
request such hearing.
   (4)  The regulations did not provide a
means to stay the effectiveness of a per-
mit  pending the exhaustion of adminis-
trative remedies. The changes effective
loday  provide  that  all  contested pro-
visions ol a  permit do not become effec-
nve pending the exhaustion of  admin-
 istrative  remedies. All severable non-
contested provisions of the permit will
become  effccli\e during such proceed-
ings.
   <5>  The  requirement  that all appli-
cants  for permits be parties to  the ad-
judicatory hearing has been changed to
place the applicant In the same position
as other Interested persons and If he be-
comes a party to the adjudicatory hear-
ing,  he must  make  his employees and
consultants available  for examination
and  cross-examination.
  (6) The requirement that Issues of law
be presented to the Presiding Officer in
connection with an adjudicatory hearing
has been amended to require that issues
of law be presented to the Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Enforcement and Gen-
eral  Counsel of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency for a decision, which  Is
furnished to the Regional Administrator
and  the parties.
  (7) The availability of an appeal from
the decision of the  Regional Adminis-
trator has  been expanded to permit an
appeal of the initial decision of  either
fie Regional Administrator  or the de-
cision of the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and  General Counsel re-
lied upon for such initial decision. Fur-
ther the regulations now make clear that
in  order  to  preserve  administrative
remedies, including an appeal to the Ad-
ministrator, an Interested person  must
join as a party to the adjudicatory hear-
ing.
  A general description of the procedures
as they are now in effect is set forth
below.  For a  complete analysis of the
new procedures,   reference  should  be
made to the section  in question.
              Subpart A
  The references to S§ 125.34 and 125.35
in § 125.35  of this  subpart  have  been
changed to reflect the renumbering and
changes in subpart D.

              Subpart D
  The amended subpart D contains pro-
cedures which ensure public  notice and
participation in permit proceedings, the
issuance and effectiveness of permits and
the administrative remedies available  to
interested persons. The means whereby
these objectives are met are:
   U> Public notice of a proposal to is-
sue,  deny or modify a permit. Section
125.32 requires public notice designed  to
inform interested and potentially Inter-
ested persons of the discharge and of the
proposed determination to issue, deny  or
modify  a permit.  This section specifies
the information required to be contained
in the notice and the manner in which it
is to be circulated.
   Where the notice  Is being given of a
proposed issuance, denial or modifica-
tion, such notice shall provide for a pe-
riod of  time not less  than  30  days
following the date of such notice during
which  time interested  persons may sub-
mit written comments. All written com-
ments  will be retained by and be con-
sidered by  the Regional  Administrator
in the formulation of his decision. Where
the  Regional  Administrator  determines
to  hold public hearings  pursuant  to
§ 125.34, public notice must be given  at
least 30 days prior to the holding of such
hearing in  order for interested persons
to prepare for the hearing
  Where public notice of an adjudicatory
hearing Is given pursuant to { 125.36, the
notice must contain. In addition to the
information described above, a statement
to the effect that all persons interested in
preserving any cause of action regarding
the final decision of the Administrator
muqt Join as a party to the adjudicatory
heaito«.
  (1) Public healings.  Section 125.34 re-
quires that public hearings be held where
a significant degree of public Interest in
a proposed permit has been shown OK
where the Regional Administrator deter-
mines that useful information will be ob-
tained. The hearings are to be conducted
by  the Regional  Administrator or  his
deslgnee. Any Interested person may sub-
mit oral or written statements and data
concerning the  permit to the Regional
Admlnlsrator. All statements, comments
and data shall  be retained by the Re-
gional Administrator and be considered
by  him In the formulation of his deri-
sion.
  (3)  Issuance and effective date of per-
mit. Section 125.35 provides the mecha-
nism whereby permits  are Issued, denied
or modified. No less than 30 days after
the date of the public notice  required by
8125.32,  the  Regional  Administrator
shall,  after consideration  of the facts
and the requirements of the  policies ex-
pressed In the Act and this part, make  a
determination with respect to a permit.
This determination with respect to a per-
mit shall be the final action of  the
Agency unless, within 10 days,  any in-
terested person requests an adjudicatory
healing pursuant to 8 125.35. If the re-
quest  for an  adjudiclary   hearing  is
granted by the  Regional Administrator,
the  provisions in the proposed permit
that are contested shall not be issued and
shall not be the  final decision of the Ad-
ministrator for  the purpose of  judicial
review until the final decision of the Ad-
ministrator has  been made. Uncontested
provisions of  the permit shall  be con-
sidered issued and effective, and the per-
mittee  shall be subject to  compliance
with those provisions of the  permit, un-
less they  are Inseverable from the con-
tested provision.
  (4)  Adjudicatory  Hearings.  Section
125.36 provides  the procedures for an
appeal from the determination of  the
Regional  Administrator by  any  inter-
ested person from the issuance, denial or
modification of a permit. Within 10 days
following the  date of the determination
of the Regional Administrator with re-
spect to a permit pursuant  to 8 125.35.
any person may submit a request to the
Regional Administrator for an adjudica-
tory hearing to reconsider his determi-
nation. Section  125.36  sets forth  the
requirements  for information to be in-
cluded In such request and the  bases
upon which a request will  be granted.
Within 10 days  following the expiration
of the time for  requiring and adjudica-
tory hearing,  the Regional Administra-
tor shall issue a public notice of adjudi-
catory hearing  where  he determines to
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  39. NO  H3—WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1974
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        27079
       the request. Within 30 days  fol-
 lowing the public notice of an adjudica-
 tor/ hearing, any interested person may
 submit a request  to be admitted as  »
 party.
  The adjudicatory hem-Inn will bo con-
 ducted by a PrciklliiK Officer who may
 hold  prchcarlnc confcu-nces with  the
 parties prior to the iidjudicatpry  hoai-
 uiK for Die  purposes of obtaining  .stipu-
 lations, admissions, and otherwise identi-
 fying matters not  in  issue,  identifying
 those matters In dispute and setting time
 schedules for the parties with respect to
 the adjudicatory hearing.
  The Presiding  Officer will then hold
 a public adjudicatory hearing.  Follow-
 ing such hearing he shall, after the par-
 lies have an opportunity for the submis-
 sion of proposed  findings and  conclu-
 sions,  certify the  record  together with
 proposed findings and conclusions, if any,
 .submitted by the parties, to the Regional
 Administrator  for an Initial  decision.
 Within 30 days following the certification
 of the record,  the  Regional Administra-
 tor shall issue an Initial decision  which
 will  become the final decision of  the
 Administrator unless, within 10 days af-
 ter its issuance, any party shall have pe-
 titioned the Administrator for review of
 the initial decision  or unless the Admin-
 istrator,  on his own motion, decides to
 review the initial decslon.
  All Issues  of fact will be the subject of
 the  adjudicatory  heading  while  all
 Issues of law will be referred by the Pre-
 siding Officer to the Assistant Adminis-
 trator for  Enforcement  and  General
 Counsel for an initial decision.
  Any party may, within 10 days follow-
 ing its issuance, appeal to the Adminis-
 trator the initial decision of either  the
 Regional Administrator or the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Gen-
 eral Counsel. Any person petitioning for
review by the Administrator of an Ini-
 tial decision shall  set forth in his peti-
tion specific reference to each portion
 of the initial decision  for which appeal
 is sought together with a summary state-
ment of  supporting reasons.  If  the Ad-
 ministrator, In his discretion, determines
 to accept review of the initial decision,
 the parties will be given the opportunity
 to file briefs in support of  their posi-
 tions.
  A petition for review by the  Admin-
 istrator of  an Initial decision Is a pre-
 requisite for judicial review  of the final
 decision of the Administrator. On review,
 the Administrator  may affirm,  modify,
.set aside or remand for further proceed-
 ings, In whole or in part, the initial  de-
 cision
              Subpart E
  Section 125.44 is being rescinded  today
 because the  substance  of that section is
 now contained in 5 125.35.
  A new 8 125.44 is being adopted  to set
 forth the manner of computing time  pe-
 riods specified In this part.
  Accordingly, subparts A, D, and E of
 part 12S of Title  40,  Code  of  Federal
Regulations are amended as set  forth
below. These amendments are promul-
gated as final amendments to the regula-
tions since they are matters relating to
Agency procedures and the changes are
needed to Improve such procedures relat-
ing to the Issuance of NPDfcS permits.
Further, because of the large number of
permit applications presently filed with
this Agency »"d the desire to make these
improved procedures available for those
permits  presently being  processed,  the
Agency h;us determined  that it is  not
necessary to provide notice of proposed
rulemaking, opportunity for public par-
ticipation or delay of effective date.
  In accordance with the spirit of the
public policy set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553, and
section 101 (e)  of the Act, however, Inter-
ested persons  may submit on or  before
September  9,   1974 written comments,
suggestions, data or arguments on these
amendments or any other section of this
part to the Office of  Enforcement  and
General Counsel, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency,  Washington,  D.C.  20460,
attention: Associate General Counsel—
Water.  Material  thus  submitted  will be
evaluated and considered  with respect to
the need  for future amendment  of  this
part.
  These amendments are effective upon
publication.
  AUTHORITY: Sections 402, 405  and 501 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended.  (86 Stat. 816 et  eeq., Pub. L. 92-
600; 3J U.S C 5 1251 et seq.).

  Dated: July  11, 197A,
                     JOHN Qu AXLES,
                Acting Administrator.

          Subpart A—General

§ 12.">..">   L \nH-ndrd]
  1. In 5 125.5. paragraph  (a) Is amended
by changing the citations "§ 125.34"  and
"8 125.25(c>" to "5 125.36" and "5 125.37
(c)" respectively and  paragraph  (b) is
amended   by   changing  the  citation
"3 125.35" to "5 125.37."

      Subpart  D—Notice and Public
              Participation
  2. Section 125.32 of this subpart is re-
vised to read as follows:

§ 125.32  Public Notice.
  (a> Public notice of the proposed Issu-
ance, denial or  modification of every
permit or denial shall be  circulated In a
manner  designed to  Inform  interested
and potentially interested persons of the
discharge and of the proposed determina-
tion to issue, deny, or modify a  permit
for the discharge. Public notice of hear-
ings shall be circulated In a manner de-
signed to inform interested and  poten-
tially interested persons of the discharge
and  of the Intention  to hold  a hearing
regarding the  Issuance of or denial of a
permit for the discharge. Procedures for
the circulation of public notice shall In-
clude at least the following:
  (D Notice shall be  circulated  within
the geographical area of the proposed
discharge; such circulation shall Include
any one of the following:
  (1> Posting In the post office and public
places of  the  municipality  nearest  the
premises of the applicant in  which the
effluent source is located;
   (11)  Posting near the entrance to the
applicant's  premises  and  In  nearby
places, or,
   till)  I'ubll.hlnu  in  local  ncw»i>ai>c,r.s
and periodicals, or. if appropriate, In a
dully newspaper of general circulation.
   tU>  Notice shall  be mailed  to the ap-
plicant. Federal und State fish, shellfish
and wildlife resource agencies, and other
appropriate government agencies, and  to
any person or group upon request and
shall provide  an opportunity to submit
their  written views and  recommenda-
tions on each proposed issuance.
   (3)  The Regional Administrator shall
add the name of  any  person or group
upon request to mailing list to receive
copies of notices within a State or with-
in a certain geographical area.
   (b) (1) Where notice Is being given  of
the proposed issuance, denial or modifi-
cation of a permit, the Regional Adminis-
trator shall provide a period  of not less
than thirty (30) days following the date
of  the  public notice during which time
interested  persons  may submit written
views concerning the tentative determi-
nations or may request that a hearing  be
held. All written  comments  submitted
during the 30-day comment period shall
be retained by the Regional Administra-
tor and considered  in the formulation  of
his final determinations with respect  to
the applicant. Extensions  of time for the
receipt of  the comments  following the
end of  the  comment  period  may   be
granted by the Regional Administrator
when the public interest warrants.
   (2)  Where notice is being  given of a
hearing,  the  Regional  Administrator
shall provide a  period of  not less  than
thirty (30) days following the  date of the
public notice during which time inter-
ested persons may prepare for the hear-
ing.
   (c)  The contents of public notice  of
the proposed Issuance, denial or modifi-
cation of a permit  shall include at least
the following:
   (1)  Date of notice of  the proposed
issuance, denial or modification;
   (2)  Name, address, phone  number  of
Regional Office  Issuing the  public  no-
tice;
   (3) Name and address  of each appli-
cant;
   (4)  Brief description  of each appli-
cant's  activities or operations  (including
the  appropriate   standard   industrial
classification code)  which result in the
discharge described in  the application.
Including a statement of whether the ap-
plication pertains to new or existing dis-
charges (e.g.,   new municipal waste
treatment plant, existing steel manufac-
turing,  drainage  from  existing mining
activities, etc.);
  (5) Name and classification of water-
way to which each discharge is made and
a concise description of the  location of
each discharge on the waterway;
  (6) (1) A statement  of the Regional
staff's  tentative  determination to Issue,
deny, or modify  a  permit for the dis-
charge described in the application;
                              FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL.  39, NO. 143—WEDNESDAY, JULY 24,  1974
-------
270SO
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
  ui) A comparison of the discharge of
i (.llutants proposed to be permitted and
that permitted by the effluent limitations
established for such  category of potnjt
'-outre where the tentative determination
involves a proposed variance from such
rfllucnt  limitations, as provided  for In
Milu-luipU-r N of this Title.
  (7> A. brief description of tho  proce-
i lu i ex for the formulation of final deter-
minations. Including toe 30-day comment
period required by paragraph (b)  of this
section, and any  other means by which
interested persons may  comment upon
those determinations;
  18) The address and phone number of
premises at  which Interested persons
may obtain further Information, request
a copy  of the fact sheet prepared pur-
suant to { 125.33 of this subpart, request
a  copy  of the  draft permit prepared
uur.sua.nt to 9 125.31 of this subpart, and
inspect and copy forms and related doc-
uments;
  (9) Where  applicable,  a  statement
that confidential Information has been
received that may be used to determine
some of the conditions for the permit;
and
  UO)  A statement that a public hear-
ing  shall be held  where the Regional
Administrator finds a significant degree
of public interest la the proposed issu-
ance, modification or denial.
  (d> The contents of public notice of
a public hearing held pursuant to { 125.-
34 of this subpart shall  Include at least
the following:
  (1 > Date of notice of  public hearing:
  (2) Name, address, and phone num-
ber of Regional Office holding the hear-
ing;
  <3> Name,  standard industrial clas-
sification code and address of each  ap-
plicant whose  application will be con-
sidered at the hearing;
   (4)  Name and clns-sifloatlon  of  the
waterway  to  which  each discharge  Is
made and a concise description  of  the
location of each discharge on the water-
v,i\y:
   (5) A reference to each public notice
of Uic proposed Issuance, denial or mod-
ification of a permit. Including  Identi-
fication number and dale of such  notice;
    The  time  and location   of  the
 hearings;
   (7)  The purix>.se of the hearing;
   <8> A concise statement of any Issues
raised  by persons requesting the hear-
 ing. If appropriate;
   (9) The address and phone number of
premises at which Interested persons may
 obtain  further information, request a
ropy of each draft permit prepared pur-
 suant to 5  125.31 of Uiis  subpart,  request
 a copy of each fact sheet prepared pur-
suant to 5125.33 of  this  subpart,  and
 Inspect and copy forms and related doc-
 uments; and
   (10)  A brief description of the nature
 ol  the  healing, Including the applicable
 rules and procedures.
   i c)  The contents of public notice of an
 iid.iudicatory  hearing held pursuant to
 5 ii!5.37 of this subpart shall Include at
 least the follow ing:
  (1) Date  of notice of  adjudicatory
hearing;
  (2) Name, address, and phone num-
ber of Regional Office holding the bear-
Ing;
  (3) Name and address of the person(s)
whose  proposed pennlt(s) will be con-
sidered  at the adjudicator? hearing;
  (4> Name of waterway  to which each
dl:><:niiriic i.s made and a concise descrip-
tion of the location of each discharge on
the waterway:
  (5) A reference to the public notice
and proposed permit, including Identifi-
cation number and the date of  issuance
of each;
  (6) Name and address of person  re-
questing the hearing and the name and
address of each known party to the hear-
ing;
  (7) A statement of the Issues raised by
the original requestor;
  (8) A concise description of the nature
of the bearing, Including applicable rules
and procedures,  and  the following state-
ments:
  (1) Any interested person may file a
request to be admitted as a party to the
hearing within 30 days  of  the date of
issuance of the notice;
  (11) Any person admitted as a party
may submit additional material Issues
for  consideration at the adjudicatory
hearing within 30 days of the date of Is-
suance of the notice;
  (HI)  Any party may at any time prior
to the  hearing  submit any documents
or written evidence  or testimony which
he Intends to introduce at the  hearing;
  (iv)  After 30 days have  elapsed fol-
lowing  the date of the  notice,  the Pre-
siding Officer may set a time and loca-
tion of  a prehearlng  conference  and
will so notify all parties.
  (v) The  proposed  permit  may  be
amended by the Regional Administrator
prior to or after the adjudicatory hear-
ing  and any person Interested hi  the
particular proposed permit must request
to be a party In order to preserve any
right to appeal  the final  administrative
determination:
  (vi)  Any State with certification rights
under section 401 of the Act must certi-
fy  or  deny  certification within thirty
(30) days after It Is  notified that a pro-
posed permit has been amended after a
request for an adjudicatory hearing has
been granted. Failure to certify or deny
certification shall be deemed  a waiver
of such certification rights;
   (9)  The address and phone number of
the premises at which an Interested per-
son may obtain further information, re-
quest  a copy of the proposed permit,
request a copy  of the fact sheet If ap-
propriate,  inspect and  copy documents
comprising  the  record  prepared pursu-
ant to  § 125.34,  and  submit a request to
be  admitted as a party and request any
additional issues to be considered at the
adjudicatory hearing; and
   (10)  Where applicable, a statement
that confidential information  has  been
received that may be used to determine
some of the conditions  for the permit
   (f)  The Regional Administrator, in his
discretion, may Issue, prior to or as part
of any notice of the proposed issuance.
denial or modification of a permit, a no-
tice  of  public  bearing  In accordance
with  paragraph  (d)  of this section,
whether or not any request for such pub-
lic hearing has been submitted to him.
  (g) Public notice issued under  this
KccUon may describe more than one per-
mit and  more than one discharge, pro-
vided that each discharge shall  be  de-
flcribcd separately.
  (h) Tile Regional Administrator may
enter Into agreements  with States  for
Joint Federal-State  public  notices and
Joint public hearings regarding appllca-'
tlons for permits and  applications  for
certification required by section  401 of
the Act.

  3. Section 125.34 of this subpart is re-
vised to read as follows:
§ 125.31  Public Hearings.
   (a) Except as  provided In paragraph
(d)  of this  section, where the Regional
Administrator finds a significant degree
of public interest in a proposed  permit
or group of permits, he shall hold a pub-
lic hearing  to consider such permit or
permits.  Public notice of such hearings
shall be given in the manner specified in
5 125.32 of this subpart.
   (b) Hearings  held  pursuant  to  this
section shall be  conducted by the  Re-
gional Administrator, or  his  deslgnee.
In an orderly and expeditious manner.
   (e) Any person snail be  permitted to
submit oral or written  statements  and
data concerning  the  proposed  permit.
The  Regional  Administrator,  or   his
designee, shall  have  discretion  to fix
reasonable limits upon the time  allowed
for oral statements, and may require the
submission of statements in •writing.
   (d) If  he determines that useful in-
formation and  data may  be obtained
thereby, the Regional Administrator may
hold a public hearing at any time prior
to the Issuance of a permit. Notice  of a
public hearing pursuant to this  section
shall be circulated as provided In  $ 125.32
 Ca)  of this subpart at least thirty  (30)
days prior to the hearing. The heatings
shall be  conducted in the manner .set
forth In paragraphs (b) and (c) of tins
section.  All statements, comments  and
data presented  at  the hearing shall be
retained  by the Regional Administrator
and considered in the formulation of Ins
determination. Where a public  hearing
Is held pursuant to this paragraph, no
public hearing Is required pursuant to
paragraph (a) above.
   4.  Subpart D IB  amended by redeslg-
natlng § 125.35 to 5 125.37 and by adding
new §5 125.35 and 125.36, reading as fol-
lows :
§ 125.35   Issuance and Effects <•  Dalr of
      Permit.

   (a) No less than thirty (30) days al-
ter the date of public notice of the pro-
posed issuance, denial or modification of
a permit required by 8 125.32 of this  sub-
part, the Regional Administrator shall,
after consideration of the facts and the
requirements  and policies  expressed In
                               FEDERAt  REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO  143—WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1974
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       27081
 the Act and these Regulations, make de-
 terminations with respect to each permit.
 Such determinations shall include a pro-
 posed permit modification or denial.
   (b)U)  Where the determinations of
 the Rational Administrator pursuant to
 paragraph (to  of thi* section with re-
 spect to any permit are substantially un-
 changed from the tentative dctrrmina-
•Uons and draft permit prepared  pur-
 suant to 1 126.31 of  this subpart,  the
 Regional Administrator shall forward a
 copy of the determinations to any person
i*'ho  has submitted  written  comments
 regarding the permit.
   (2) Where  the determinations of the
 Regional   Administrator pursuant  to
 paragraph (a)  of this section with re-
 spect to  any  permit  are  substantially
 changed from  the tentative determina-
 tions and draft permit prepared pursu-
 ant to } 125.31 of this subpart,  the Re-
 gional Administrator  shall give public
 notice of such determinations.
   (e) The proposed permit, modifica-
 tion or denial contained in the deter-
 mination of the Regional Administrator
 prepared  pursuant  to paragraph  (b)
 above shall become issued and the final
 action of the  Environmental Protection
 Agency, unless a request for an adjudi-
 catory hearing la granted  pursuant to
 5 128.37 ( 1 ) Except as provided in subpara-
 graph (2) of this paragraph, the date of
 Issuance of a permit shall be the date all
 provWona of a permit become effective.
 The period within which a person may
 request an adjudicatory hearing pur-
 suant to §«6.3« of this  subpart
 shall commence on the date of receipt of
 the determination of the Regional Ad-
 ministrator. The permH shall take effect
 thirty (30) days after the date of the de-
 termination unless a later effective date
 Is specified m the determination.
   <2> If a request for an adjudicatory
 hearing is granted pursuant to  J 125.36
 (b) of this subpart, the effect of the con-
 tested provtstonts) of the proposed per-
 mtt, as  determined by the Regional Ad-
 ministrator. shall be  stayed  and shall
 not be considered the final action of the
 Administrator  for the purposes  of Judi-
 cial review pursuant to j 509(b') of the
 Act, pending  final agency  action pur-
 suant to 5 125.36 of this subpart. Con-
 tested provisions of a  proposed permit
 shall include   uncontested  provisions
 which are Inseverable from  those provi-
 sions contested.  TJncontested provisions
 of the proposed permit contained in the
 determination shall be considered issued
 and effective, and the permittee  shall be
 subject to all such provisions.
 § 125.36  Adjndiralory
   (a)  Definitions:
   (I)  "Party" shall mean officers or em-
 ployees of  the Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency designated by the Adminis-
 trator or the  Regional Administrator to
 prepare permits for  issuance, and any
 person whose  request for a hearing or re-
quest to be  a party pursuant  to  tln.s
section has been granted.
  (21 "Person"  shall mean  the State
water pollution  control agency  of  any
State or States In which the discharge or
proposed  discharge  shall' originate or
which may be affected by such discharge,
the applicant for a permit, and any for-
eign country. Federal agency, or other
person or  ixrsona having  an  Interest
which may be affected.
  (3) The term "Administrator" means
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection  Agency, or any officer or em-
ployee of the Agency to whom authority
is delegated to act in his stead, including,
where appropriate, a presiding officer.
  (4) The term "Judicial Officer" means
an officer or employee of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency appointed as
a judicial  officer by the Administrator
pursuant to this section who shall meet
the qualifications and perform functions
as follows:
  (i) Officer—there may be designated
for the  purposes of this section one or
more judicial officers. As work requires,
there may be a judicial officer designated
to act for  the purposes of a particular
case.
  (il) Qualifications—a Judicial Officer
may be  a permanent or temporary em-
ployee of the Environmental Protection
Agency  who  performs  other duties  for
the Agency. Such Judicial Officer  shall
not be employed by the Office of Enforce-
ment and General Counsel or the Office
of Air and  Water Programs or have any
connection with the preparation or pres-
entation of evidence for a hearing held
pursuant to this part.
  (ill)  Functions — the Administrator
may delegate any of his authority to act
in a. given case under  this section to a
Judicial Officer. The Administrator may
delegate his authority to make findings
of fact in a particular proceeding, pro-
vided that  this delegation shall not pre-
clude the Judicial Officer from referring
any motion or case to the Administrator
when the  Judicial Officer  determines
such referral to be appropriate. The Ad-
ministrator, in deciding a case himself,
may consult with and  assign the pre-
liminary drafting  of findings of fact to
any  Judicial Officer.
  (5)  The  term  "Regional  Hearing
Clerk" means an  employee  of the  En-
vironmental  Protection Agency desig-
nated by the Regional Administrator to
establish a repository for all documents
relating to hearings under this  section.
  (6) The  term  "Presiding  Officer"
means  a person appointed  by the  Re-
gional Administrator or the Administra-
tor for the purpose of presiding at  the
adjudicatory hearing.
  (b) Requests for Adjudicatory Hear-
ings and Legal Decisions
  (l) Within 10 days following the date
of determination with regard to a permit
pursuant to { 125.35(a)  of this subpart
or any modification thereto, any inter-
ested person may submit to the Regional
Administrator a request for an adjudica-
tory hearing pursuant  to  paragraph
(b) (2) of this section or a legal decision
pursuant to paragraph (m)  of this sec-
tion,  to  reconsider  the  determination
with regard to a  permit  and the con-
ditions contained therein.
  (2) Requests  for  an   adjudicatory
hearing shall.
  d)  State the name anil acklirsf, ot  the
person making euoh request:
  (II) Identity the Interest  of  the  re.
queator which to affected by the proposal
issuance, denial or modification of  the
permit contained in the determination of
the Regional Administrator pursuant to
1128.35 (a);
  (ill) Identify  any persons whom  the
request represents;
  (iv)  Include an agreement by the re-
questor to be subject to examination and
crow-examination and to  make any em-
ployee or consultant of such requestor or
other person represented by the requestor
available for examination and cross-ex-
amination  at  the expense of such  re-
questor or such other person upon  the
request of  the Presiding Officer, on his
own motion, or on  the motion of any
party.
  (v) State with particularity the rea-
sons for the request;
  (vi)  State with particularity the Is-
sues proposed to  be considered at  the
hearing; and
  (vli) Include proposed terms and con-
ditions which, in  the judgment of  the
requestor, would be required to carry out
the Intendment of the Act.
  (e) Decision on  a Request for  a Hear-
ing.
  <1) Within ten (10) days following the
expiration  of the time allowed by para-
graph (b) of this section  for submitting
a, request for  an  adjudicatory hearing,
the Regional Administrator shall  grant
the request and shall promptly assign the
matter for  hearing if he determines that
a submitted request:
  (1)  meets the requirements of  para-
graph < b) of this section and,
  (11) sets  forth material issues of fact
relevant to the questions of whether  a
permit should  be issued, denied or modi-
fied.
  (2) If the Regional Administrator  de-
termines that the request falls  to meet
the requirements of paragraph (c) (1) of
this section, he shall deny the  request.
  (3)  If  the  Regional  Administrator
grants a  request  for an adjudicatory
hearing in regard to a particular pro-
posed permit,  he shall treat  each oUier
request for an adjudicatory  hearing  In
regard to that proposed permit as a re-
quest to be a party and shall grant any
such request which  meets the require-
ments of paragraph (b) of this section.
  (4) The  Regional Administrator shall
issue public notice  of such hearing in  the
manner specified In 1125.32
-------
27082
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
any  request which meets  the require-
ments of paragraph (b)(2)  of this sec-
tion. The request must set forth all ma-
terial issues of fact the requestor seeks
to be  considered at the  adjudicator?
hearing.
  (2> Following  the  expiration of the
time provided in  subparagraph  (1) of
this paragraph for the submission of re-
quests  to  be admitted as a party, any
person may file a  motion  for leave to
Intervene as a party In an  adjudlcatory
hearing. Such  motion must set forth the
information   required  by   paragraph
 (2)  of this section, the  grounds for
the proposed intervention, and the Inter-
est and position of the moving party in
the proceeding.  A  motion  for leave to
Intervene in a hearing must ordinarily be
filed prior to the commencement of the
first  prehearing  conference. Any motion
filed after that time must contain, In
addition to  the  Information required
above, a statement of good  cause for the
failure to file the  motion  prior  to the
commencement  of  the first preheating
conference and  shall be granted  only
upon a finding  (1)  that extraordinary
circumstances justify the granting of the
motion, and (ID  that the Intervenor shall
be bound by agreements, arrangements
and  other matters previously made In
the proceeding.
  (e) Piling and Service.
  (1) An original and two  (2) copies of
all documents or papers required or au-
thorized to be  filed pursuant  to this
section shall be  filed  with  the Regional
Hearing  Cleric.  Filing shall be deemed
timely if mailed to the Regional  Office
within the time allowed by  this section.
   (2) Any party may  at any time reduce
to writing  and file within  the Regional
Hearing Clerk any testimony which said
party intends  to introduce  Into evidence
at the hearing.
   <3) Except for requests for' an ad-
judicatory hearing or requests to  be  a
party, at the same time that a party flies
with the Regional Hearing Clerk any
additional issues for consideration at the
hearing or any written testimony, docu-
ments, papers, exhibits, or materials pro-
posed to be introduced into evidence, it
shall serve upon all other parties copies
thereof. A certification of service shall
be provided on or accompany each docu-
ment or paper  filed  with  the Regional
Hearing Clerk.
   (f) Representation.
   Parties may be represented  by counsel
or other duly authorized representatives.
   (g) Consolidation.
   The Administrator or Regional Admin-
istrator (s> , in his or their discretion, may
consolidate two or more proceedings to
be held under this section whenever It
appears that  this will expedite or sim-
plify consideration of the  Issues. Con-
solidation  shall not affect the rights of
 any party to raise Issues that  could have
been raised  if  consolidation had not
occurred. At  the conclusion of the ad-
judlcatory hearing, the Administrator or
Regional Administrator shall render  a
 separate decision for each proceeding.
  (h) Prehearing Conference.
  (1) The Presiding Officer may hold one
or more prehearing conferences prior to
any  adjudlcatory hearing. The confer-
ence shall be within a reasonable  period
of time following the date of Issuance of
public notice of the adjudloatory hearing
but not less than thirty (30) days after
such notice. The Presiding Officer shall
set the time and location  of the confer-
ence and  give reasonable  notice thereof
to all parties. If the Presiding Officer so
directs, the notice shall also:
  (1) Specify that parties are required to
produce witness lists or any other mate-
rials prior to or at the prehearing confer-
ence; and
  (ii> Indicate that the Presiding  Officer
intends to hold the adjudlcatory hearing
immediately upon completion of the
conference.
  (2) In the discretion of the Presiding
Officer, persona other than parties may
attend prehearing  conferences.
  (3) At  a  prehearing   conference or
within some reasonable time set  by the
Presiding Officer, each party shall make
available to the other parties the names
of the expert  and other witnesses the
party  expects  to  call, together with  a
brief narrative summary of their  antici-
pated testimony. Copies of any written
testimony, documents, papers, exhibits,
or materials which a party expects to in-
troduce into evidence shall be marked
for  identification  as  ordered by the
Presiding  Officer.  Witnesses  and  pro-
posed written evidence  may  be added
and narrative summaries  of expected
testimony  amended only upon a finding
of the Presiding Officer that good cause
existed for failure to Introduce the addi-
tional or amended material within the
time specified by the Presiding Officer.
   (4)  At  any prehearing conference, or
at any other  time by agreement of the
parties, the Presiding Officer may:
   (l) Obtain stipulations and admissions,
and otherwise Identify matters on which
there is agreement;
   (il) Identify disputed Issues of a purely
legal nature which shall be decided pur-
suant to the procedure specified In para-
graph (m)  of this section;
   (ill) Identify disputed  issues for con-
sideration at the hearing;
   (iv) Consider and rule upon objections
to the introduction into evidence at the
hearing of any written  testimony docu-
ments, papers, exhibits, or materials pro-
posed by a party pursuant to paragraph
 (d> (2) or (h) (3) of this section;
   (v)  Identify matters of which Official
Notice may be taken;
   (vt) Set a hearing schedule which in-
cludes definite or tentative tunes for as
many of the  following  as are  deemed
necessary by the Presiding Officer:
   (A) Oral and written statements;
   (B) Submission of written direct testi-
mony required by or authorized  by the
 Presiding Officer;
   (C) Oral  direct and  cross-examina-
 tion where necessary;
   (D) Oral argument. If appropriate.
   (vlli) Strike issues not material or not
relevant  to the question of whether  a
permit should be Issued and what condi-
tions to such permit would be required to
carry out the Intendment of the Act;
  (ix)  Set a time and location for the
next prehearing conference, or, if no fur-
ther conference* are needed, the adjudi-
catory hearing; and
  ix) Consider any other matter tbat
may expedite the hearing  or aid in the
disposition of the matter.
  (5) The results of any conference shall
be summarized hi  writing by  the Pre-
siding Officer and made part of the rec-
ord.
  (1) Adjudlcatory Hearing Procedure.
  (1)  The burden of proof and of going
forward with the evidence shall be upon
the requestor.
  (2) 
-------
                                             IULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        27083
  Any party may. within 10 days follow-
ing the completion of testimony and the
cross-examination of witnesses (or later
if  the parties agree), submit  proposed
findings and eunoNrions.
  (1)  Initial Decision by Regional  Ad-
ministrator.
  in Wllhtn 10 days after  completion
of testimony and  cross-examination of
witnesses or within 5 days from  the
receipt of proposed findings and conclu-
sions, whichever is  later (or  later  if the
parties  agree),  the Presiding  Officer
shall  certify the record,  together with
any  proposed findings  and  conclusions
.submitted by the parties, to the Regional
Administrator  for  an  initial  decision.
Within twenty (20) days following certi-
fication of the record the Regional  Ad-
ministrator  or  his deslgnee  shall issue
an initial decision  and promptly notify
the parties and the Administrator there-
of
  (2> The Initial  decision  of the  Re-
tttonal Administrator shall  Include  a
statement of findings and conclusions in-
cluding the reasons and the basis there-
fore. All issues of fact or discretion sub-
mitted by the parties in proposed find-
ings and  conclusions  pursuant to  this
section shall be  addressed in the Initial
decision of the Regional Administrator.
  (3* Where a legal decision  has been
requested and no adjudicatory hearing
rms been granted, the Regional Admin-
istrator shall render an initial decision
within 20 days after receiving  the deci-
sion of the  Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and General Counsel.
  (4) The initial decision of the  Re-
gional Administrator shall become the
final decision of the Agency unless with-
in ten (10)  days after its Issuance  any
party shall  have  appealed  the  initial
decision to the Administrator pursuant
to paragraph (n)(l> of this section, or
unless the Administrator on his own  mo-
tion pursuant to  paragraph in) (2) of
this section shall have stayed the effec-
tiveness of the decision of the Regional
Administrator pending review.
  (in) Decision of the Assistant Admin-
istrator for  Enforcement and  General
Counsel on questions of law.
  (1) Issues of law. Including questions
relating to the Interpretation  of  provi-
sions of the Act, and the legality and in-
terpretation of regulations promulgated
pursuant to the Act, shall be decided in
accordance  with  this subsection  and
shall not be considered at the adjudica-
tory hearing.
  (2) The Presiding Officer  shall  deter-
mine which issues, if any, submitted by
the parties  fall  into the  category spec-
ified  In subparagraph d) of this para-
graph, and shall refer such issues to the
Assistant Administrator  for  Enforce-
ment and General Counsel for resolution.
Such referral may be accompanied by
briefs. filed with  the Assistant Admin-
istrator  for  Enforcement and General
Counsel  within twenty (20)  days  of the
removal  of the referred issues from the
adjudicatory hearing by  the  Presiding
Officer  pursuant  to subparapraph <2)-
of  this  paragraph.  The  brief  shall
contain,  in  the order  Indicated,  the
following:
  (1)  A subject index of Ute Issues pre-
sented in the brief, with pane reference*.
and * table of statute*. cn*<*. textbooks.
and other material cited, with paitr ref-
erences thereto:
  (U) A  concise statement of each re-
ferred issue:
  (111) A  discussion of each issue, In-
cluding arguments  in favor of the re-
ferring party's position and citations to
eases, statutes,  legislative history, etc.,
tending to support such positions;  and
  (iv) A recommended decision for each
referred Issue.
  <3)  Where no adjudicatory hearing
has been granted, issues of law may be
referred by the Regional Administrator
to the Assistant Administrator for  En-
forcement  and  General Counsel  for a
decision In the manner specified in para-
graph (m) (2) of this section.
  (4) The Assistant Administrator  for
Enforcement and General Counsel shall
provide the Regional Administrator, the
Presiding Officer, where appropriate, and
each  party with a written decision with
respect to each referred Issue of law. A
written opinion setting forth the reasons
ajid basis for the decision shall also be
provided.  The  decision of the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Gen-
eral Counsel shall be final with respect to
each referred issue of law as it relates to
the particular permit in  question  and
shall be relied upon by the Regional Ad-
ministrator  in  rendering  the   initial
decision.
  (n)  Appeal of Initial  decision of  the
Regional Administrator.
  (1) Any party may file  a  petition  for
the Administrator's review of the  initial
decision of the Regional Administrator
or  the decision  of the Assistant Admin-
istrator for  Enforcement and General
Counsel relied upon by the Regional Ad-
ministrator in rendering the Initial  de-
cision.
  (2) The Administrator may, on his own
initiative, review the initial decision of
the Regional Administrator.  Notice of
each  decision  shall  be  mailed  to  all
parties, by certified mail, within two days
after the Administrator has  determined,
pursuant to this subparagraph, to review
the initial decision of the Regional Ad-
ministrator.
  (3) Any person seeking review  of  the
initial decision of the Regional Adminis-
trator by the Administrator shall, with-
in ten (10) days of the initial decision of
the Regional Administrator file with the
Administrator   and   mail,  by  certified
mail, to all parties a petition for the Ad-
ministrator's review.  Such petition shall
indicate specifically those portions of the
initial decision to which exceptions  are
taken together with a summary  state-
ment of the supporting reasons for such
exceptions, including, where appropriate,
a showing that the initial decision of the
Regional Administrator contained a find-
ing of fact or a conclusion of law which
is  clearly  erroneous or an  exercise of
decision or policy which Is Important and
which  the Administrator should. In his
discretion, review.
  (4) The Administrator (-hall promptly
determine whether the  petition  for re-
view is accepted  or denied  The Admin-
istrator.  In  his discretion,  may  decline
to review the Initial deriflion <>f the Re-
gional Administrator in which cane the
Inltiai decision becomes the final  deci-
sion of the Administrator. If the Admin-
istrator accepts the petition for review.
he shall notify the parties of the matters
to be considered  on review and set forth
the  time in which briefs may  be filed.
  (5)  After accepting review,  the Ad-
ministrator  may  nevertheless  summarily
affirm the decision of the Regional Ad-
ministrator.
  (6)  A petition to the Administrator
for review of any initial decision of the
Regional Administrator  pursuant   to
subparagraph  (1) of this paragraph  is.
pursuant to 5 TJ S.C. 5 704, a prerequisite
to the seeking of judicial review of the
final decision of the Adminlstratoi
   17)  Unless a party timely files a peti-
tion for review, or unless the Administra-
tor on his own initiative orders review.
the  initial decision of the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall become the  final deci-
sion of the  Administrator. If a petition
for review is filed timely by a  party pur-
suant to paragraph (nMl> of thi.s sec-
tion, or  action to review Is taken by the
Administrator on his own initiative pur-
suant to paragraph (n) (2) of thi.s sec-
tion, the initial decision of the Regional
Administrator shall not become the final
action of the Administrator.
   (8) 
days of  service of a brief In  support  of
the petition.
   (ii)  When the Administrator  deter-
mines to review on his own Initiative, any
party may serve and file briefs in support
of their positions within thirty <30> days
of  his determination  and reply  briefs
within thirty (30) days of service of the
original briefs.
   (ill) The Administrator may .specify
other  time  periods for service of briefs
   (9) <1) Review by the Administrator of
an initial decision  by the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall be limited to matters
specified, except that on notice to all par-
ties, the Administrator, in his discretion.
may raise and decide other matters which
he deems material.
   (il)  Upon review,  the Administrator
may affirm, modify, set aside  or remand
for  further proceedings, In whole or  in
part, the initial decision of the Regional
Administrator and make any findings  or
conclusions  which  in  his  judgment are
proper.  Any affirmations  of  the initial
decision of Regional  Administrator  by
the  Administrator, for whatever reason,
shall be deemed to be affirmed  for the
reasons  indicated by  the Regional Ad-
ministrator unless  other  reasons are
stated by the Administrator.
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 143—WEDNESDAY,  JULY 24, )974
-------
 27084
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  1 10' tl)  Briefs shall be confined to the
particular matters  remaining at issue.
Briefs not filed at or before the time pro-
vided will not be received except upon
special permission of the Administrator.
Each exception which is briefed shall be
supported by citation of  such statutes.
rules, decision and other authorities and
by page reference to such portions of the
record as may be relevant. Reply briefs
shall be confined to  matters in original
briefs of other parties.
  dt> All brief a filed with the Admin-
istrator shall Include an Index and table
of authorities. Each brief shall be dated.
tvnd  no brief shall be longer than sixty
1 60)   pages except with the permission
of the Administrator.
  iiii> All briefs must be signed by the
party filing same or his authorised agent
or attorney and show the  address of the
siyuer.
  UJ> The Administrator shall  decide
the matters under review on the basis of
the record presented and any other con*
sideration he deems relevant. Oral argu-
ment before  the Administrator will be
available only where the Administrator.
in his discretion, requests such argument.
  <13> All papers required to be filed
with the Administrator shall be mailed
to the Administrator, certified mail, and
be received by the Administrator within
the time limit for such filing. All papers
required to be served on any party shall
be mailed to such party, certified mall, at
the address for such party as it appears
on the record, within the time limit for
such service.
  (o) Delegation of Authority
  The Administrator  may, pursuant to
paragraph (a) (4> of  this section, dele-
gate to a Judicial Officer any or part of
his authority to act pursuant to this sec-
tion.
       Subpart E—MlweHaneout
  9.  Subpart E is amended by revoking
S 125.44 and adding  a new 1125.44.
§ 125.44  Computation of Time.
  In computing any  period of time pre-
scribed  or  allowed to this Part, except
unless otherwise  provided, the day on
which the designated period of time be-
gins to run shall not be Included. The
last day of the period so computed is to
be Included unless it to a Saturday,  a
Sunday or a legal  holiday  on which
the Environmental Protection Agency is
not open for business, in which event the
period runs until the end of the next day
which is not a Saturday. Sunday or legal
holiday, intermediate Saturdays,  Sun-
days and legal holidays shall be excluded
from the computation when the period
of time prescribed or allowed to 7 days
or less.
  [PR Doc.74-16381 FU«d 7-33-74:8:45 im]
                               KOOtAl tEdSTEl, VOL 19, NO.  143—WIONCSOAY, JWY 14, 1*74
-------
                 V.4

                 TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1973
                 WASHINGTON, D.C.

                 Volume 38 • Number 141

                 PART II
                 ENVIRONMENTAL
                    PROTECTION
                      AGENCY
                 NATIONAL POLLUTANT
                 DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
                        SYSTEM

                  Guidelines for Acquisition
                    of Information From
                  Owners of Point Sources
Ml—Ft. n—i
-------
 19894
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
PART 124—STATE PROGRAM ELEMENTS
   NECESSARY FOR  PARTICIPATION  IN
   THE   NATIONAL   POLLUTANT  DIS-
   CHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
   PART  125—NATIONAL POLLUTANT
   DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
  Guidelines for Acquisition of Information
      From Owners of Point Sources
  Notice was published in the FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of April  19, 1973 (38  FR
9740), at 40 CFR 126, that the Environ-
mental  Protection  Agency  was giving
consideration  to proposed  forms and
guidelines for the acquisition  of infor-
mation  from owners and  operators of
point sources of discharge  subject to the
National Pollutant  Discharge  Elimina-
tion System. These proposals were issued
pursuant to the  authority contained in
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of  1972 186  Stat. 816;  33
U.S.C. 1251 (1972)1 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Act").
  Section 402 of the Act creates a Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System  (hereinafter referred to as the
"NPDES") under which  the  Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency  may, after notice  and opportu-
nity for public hearing, issue permits  for
the discharge of any pollutant or com-
bination of pollutants,  upon  condition
that such  discharge will  meet  all  ap-
plicable requirements of the Act relating
to effluent  limitations,  water  quality
standards  and  implementation  plans,
new source performance standards, toxic
and pretreatment effluent standards,  in-
spection, monitoring, and  entry provi-
sions, and guidelines establishing ocean
discharge criteria.
  Section 402 also provides that States
desiring to administer their own permit
program may submit a full and complete
description of such a program to the Ad-
ministrator for approval. The  Adminis-
trator is to approve a State's program,
and suspend issuance of permits under
section  402, unless  he  determines that
the State does not possess adequate au-
thority to perform certain acts detailed
in 402(b) of the Act. The State also must
have an approved continuing planning
process  under section 303 (e) of the Act
before  approval  of  its  permit  program
can be granted. In addition to these  re-
quirements,  a  State  permit   program
cannot be approved unless it  conforms
to guidelines issued under section 304(h)
(2) of the Act prescribing minimum pro-
cedural  and other elements of any State
program under section 402. These latter
guidelines were published in the FEDERAL
REGISTER on Friday, December 22, 37  FR
28390 (1972).
  Comments were received and appro-
priate changes made to the form and
guidelines. In the  interest of consoli-
dating all information relating to appli-
cation for an NPDES permit, the revised
guidelines are herein published as final
rulemaklng in the form of amendments
to 40 CFR 125, the NPDES program reg-
ulations  (38 FR  13528).  The  revised
guidelines are also promulgated herein
as an amendment to 40 CFR 124,  State
Program Elements Necessary for Partici-
pation in the NPDES (37 FR 28390).
  Principal  revisions to  the proposed
forms are as follows:
  1. The degree of analytical accuracy
required  has been limited to two signifi-
cant digits,  as this is all that is needed
to apply  the effluent guidelines.
  2. "Absent" can now be entered on the
effluent description if in the discharger's
"reasoned judgment"  a constituent  is
absent; he no longer must be "certain,"
as  this  would  be impossible without
analysis.
  3. Instructions for items 7-9 (facility
intake water, water use, and discharge),
Section I, Form A, have been clarified to
indicate  that  stormwater  must be in-
cluded only if it combines with  other
flows; this was originally not clear.
  4. It has been clarified that substances
present in the intake water should be
marked "present" on the checklist.  How-
ever, no analysis is required for purposes
of the application; any previous analysis
performed should be reported. We elimi-
nated  reference to  "trace levels" and
"drinking  water  standards"  because
there are no adequate standards cover-
ing enough  parameters, and  some sub-
stances  could be toxic even in  trace
amounts.
  5. It has been clarified that discharge
descriptions are  required for discharges
to  surface  waters,  discharges  to  wells
where there  is also a discharge to surface
•waters from the same facility, and dis-
charges  to  municipal  sewer  systems  if
the discharge will not receive treatment
prior  to discharge  to  surface  waters.
This was originally intended but unclear.
  6. It has  been clarified that  certain
items "do not apply" to mining opera-
tions, in  response to a comment to this
effect.
  Principal  revisions to the regulations
are as follows:
  1. The  percentage of industrial contri-
bution necessitating a municipal plant's
filing the standard form has been raised
from  1  percent to 5  percent, because
this is more consistent with  the  other
criteria for  Tiling the Standard Form,
i.e., industries discharging ever  50,000
gallons per  day must file and municipal
plants serving  over  10,000 population
must file. The average size plant serving
a population of  10,000 treats approxi-
mately one  million gallons per day, and
50,000 gpd is 5 percent of one million.
  2. It has  been clarified that the pro-
hibition on imposing application fees on
Federal,  State and local facilities applies
only to  facilities filing applications to
EPA.  This was  originally intended but
unclear.
  3. It has been clarified that manufac-
turing facilities discharging to a munici-
pal plant are not required to file the
Standard Form  C. This was thought to
be  implicit  but  comments indicated  it
was not  clear.
  4. The requirement, that a manufac-
turing or commercial  facility file the
Standard Form  if the discharge affects
the waters of another State, has been
deleted because It Is too broad. This cri-
terion remains Implicit in the authority
to require submission of  the Standard
Form, whenever necessary,  in  order  to
make a decision  on the application.
  5.  The  requirement that  a manufac-
turing or  commercial facility file the
Standard Form  if the discharge  "con-
tains or  may  contain" toxic substances
has been revised to "contains toxic sub-
stances,"  because "may contain" is too
broad.
  6.  It has been clarified that anyono
who  applied  for  a  permit under the
Refuse Act, whose application was not
denied, is not  required to reapply unless
his discharge  has substantially changed
in nature, volume, or frequency. This
was   originally  intended  but  unclear.
Also, no  further fee will be  charged for
reapplication  unless  the   substantial
change involves an additional outlet  or
discharge point. This point  was not ad-
dressed before but comments indicated
the need for a policy.
  It  should be noted  that this does not
preclude requesting additional informa-
tion  of Refuse Act applicants, including
completion  of  specific  items on the
Standard Form.
  Because of the importance of making
NPDES  forms and related  regulations
available as soon as  possible to owners
and  operators of point sources of dis-
charge subject to the NPDES, the Ad-
ministrator finds good cause to declare
that  these regulations  and ths  forms,
whose notice of availability follows im-
mediately  hereafter,  are  effective im-
m^diately.
  Dated: July 18, 1973.
                    JOHN QUARLES,
            For Acting Administrator.

  Forms for acquisition of  information
from  owners  and operators  of  point
sources.  Notice  was  published in the
FEDERAL REGISTER issue of April 19, 1973
(38 FR 9740), that the Environmental
Protection Agency was giving consider-
ation to  proposed forms for the acquisi-
tion   of  information  from  owners and
operators of point sources of discharge.
The  forms and  accompanying instruc-
tions describe, pursuant to the authority
contained in section  304(h)(l) and 402
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972  (86 Stat. 816;
33 U.S.C. 1251 (1972)), requirements for
the acquisition of information from own-
ers and operators of point sources subject
to the  National  Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. Copies of the forms
are  available  at State  water pollution
control agencies having approved pro-
grams and at all Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Regional Offices.
  A. Part 124  of Title 40 of  the Code  of
Federal Regulations,  issued  under sec-
tions 304(h)  and 402  of  the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972  (86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Public
Law  92-500, 33 U.S.C. 1251), Is amended
as follows:
  1.  Section 124.1 Definitions is amended
by deleting paragraph (h) and Inserting
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL  38, NO. 141—TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1973
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        19895
new paragraphs (h),  (1) and  (j)  as
follows:

§ 124.1  Definition*.
  (h)  The  term  "NPDES application
short form" or "short form" means one
or more, as appropriate, of the following:
  (1) Short Form A—Municipal Waste-
water Dischargers.
  (2) Short Form B—Agriculture.
  (3)  Short  Form  C—Manufacturing
Establishments and Mining.
  (4) Short Form  D—Services, Whole-
sale  and  Retail Trade,  and All Other
Commercial  Establishments  Including
Vessels, Not Engaged in Manufacturing
or Agriculture.
  (i)  The  term  "NPDES application
standard  form"  or  "standard  form"
means one or more,  as  appropriate,  of
the following:
  (1) Standard Form A—"Municipal.
  (2) Standard Form C—Manufactur-
ing and Commercial.
  (j)  The term  "NPDES  application"
means the uniform national forms (in-
cluding the  NPDES  application  short
forms,  NPDES  application   standard
forms, and any subsequent additions, re-
visions  or modifications duly promul-
gated by the Administrator pursuant to
the Act) for application for an NPDES
permit.

  2.  The definition of the term "NPDES
reporting  form" is redesignated "(k),"
and all  subsequent definitions are redes-
ignated accordingly.
  3.  A new § 124.21 is  Inserted as follows:
§ 124.21  Application for NPDES per-
     mit.
  Procedures of any  State or interstate
agency  participating in the NPDES shall
Insure that every applicant for an NPDES
permit  complies with NPD2S filing re-
quirements.  Such  procedures  and  re-
quirements shall include  the following:
  (a) Except as provided in paragraphs
(b) and (c) (4)  of this section and except
as provided  by the Administrator in reg-
ulations issued under the act, any person
discharging or who proposes to discharge
pollutants shall complete, sign, and sub-
mit an NPDES application short form in
accordance  with the instructions pro-
vided with such form.
COMMENT.  Federal filing requirements for the
NPDES Include the timely filing of a properly
completed  Refuse Act or NPDES application
form. State and Interstate agencies may spec-
ify, where necessary,  additional  filing  re-
quirements such as the submission of engi-
neering  reports, plans, and specifications for
present  or proposed treatment or control of
discharges of pollutants. While duplication
should  be avoided, the Administrator rec-
ognizes  that the NPDES  application form
may not by Itself satisfy the needs of every
participating program.

   (b)  Any person  who filed a complete
Refuse Act application and whose appli-
cation  has  not been denied is not re-
quired  to apply for a permit under these
regulations  unless   the  discharge  de-
scribed in the application for a Refuse
Act permit has substantially changed in
nature, volume, or frequency. Such com-
plete Refuse Act permit application shall
be considered to be an application under
the NPDES and shall be treated accord-
ingly. If, however,  the  discharge de-
scribed in the Refuse Act permit appli-
cation has substantially changed in na-
ture, volume, or frequency, the applicant
shall complete, sign and submit the ap-
propriate NPDES application  form,  as
provided in paragraph (a) or (c) of this
section.
  (c) (1) If the information submitted by
an  applicant for an  NPDES permit in
Short Form  A  (relating to municipal
wastewater treatment facilities) or any
other information available to the  Di-
rector or the Regional Administrator in-
dicates any of the following, the appli-
cant shall be required to complete, sign
and submit a Standard Form A:
  (i)  The  discharges from the facility
have a total volume of more than 5 mil-
lion gallons on any day'of the year;
  (ii) The facility serves a population in
excess of 10,000; or
  (iii) The facility receives wastes from
an industrial user and such wastes
  (A) Have a total volume of more than
50,000 gallons on any day of the year,
  (B)  Contain  toxic pollutants,
  (C) Have a total volume which consti-
tutes more than 5 percent of the volume
of the total discharge from the facility
on any day of the year, or
  (D)  Alone  or in  combination with
other discharges into the facility  inter-
fere with the operation of the facility or
adversely affect the quality of the dis-
charge from the facility.
  (2) If the information submitted by an
applicant for a permit on Short Form C
(relating to manufacturing  establish-
ments and mining) or on Short Form D
(relating to services, wholesale and retail
trade, and all  other  commercial estab-
lishments, including vessels, not engaged
in manufacturing or agriculture)  or any
other information available  to the  Di-
rector or the Regional Administrator in-
dicates any of the following, the  appli-
cant shall be required to complete, sign,
and submit a Standard Form C:
   (i)  The discharges (except those to
publicly owned treatment works) from
the facility have a total volume of  50,000
gallons on any day of the year;
   (ii)  The discharges (except those to
publicly owned treatment works)  con-
tain toxic pollutants.
   (3) In addition to paragraph  (c)  (1) or
 (2)  of  this section,  an  applicant shall
complete,  sign, and  submit  the  appro-
priate standard form if the Director or
the Regional  Administrator determines
that such submission is necessary  to de-
termine whether or not and upon what
conditions a permit should be issued for
the discharges  identified  in  the short
form.
   (4) Any  applicant  may  submit  a
standard form without prior submission
of  a  short form if he complies with all
applicable filing dates and requirements.
  (d) A requirement  that  any person
wishing to commence discharges of pol-
lutants  after July 16,  1973, must  file  a
complete NPDES application either (1)
no less than 180 days in advance of the
date on which it is desired to commence
the discharge of  pollutants, or  (2)  in
sufficient  time prior to the commence-
ment of the discharge of pollutants to
insure compliance with the requirements
of section 306 of  the  Act, or with any
applicable zoning or siting requirements
established pursuant to section  208(b)
(2) (C)  of the Act,  and any other ap-
plicable water quality standards and ap-
plicable effluent standards  and limita-
tions.
COMMENT. The purpose of this requirement
Is to Insure that the Director  has sufficient
time  to  examine   applications  from  new
sources of discharge of pollutants  and  to
apply standards of performance without un-
necessarily delaying scheduled startup. The
sooner the Director can specify requirements
for new sources, the more easily  the appli-
cant can modify his plans. If necessary, with-
out disruption and waste. Those State or In-
terstate agencies which begin  review at the
planning stages of a new project  are In the
best position  to Insure  orderly  compliance
with new source standards.

   (e) Procedures  which (1) enable the
Director  to require the submission  of
additional information  after  a  Refuse
Act or an NPDES application  has been
filed, and (2) insure  that,  if  a  Refuse
Act or NPDES application is incomplete
or otherwise deficient, processing  of the
application shall  not be completed until
such  time as the applicant  has supplied
the  missing information  or  otherwise
corrected the deficiency.
COMMENT. The Director may find he needs
Information other than that  Initially filed
oy the applicant In order to make a permit
decision.  The Director should not hesitate
to go back to the  applicant for further in-
formation. In some cases, nothing less than
an on-slte Inspection of an applicants' pollu-
tion control  technology and  practices will
suffice.
   No  NPDES permit should be Issued until
the applicant has fully complied with the
filing requirements specified In this suhpart.
If an applicant falls or refuses  to  correct
deficiencies In his NPDES application form.
the Director should take timely enforcement
action.

   B.  Part 125 of Title 40 of the Code  of
Federal  Regulations, issued under  sec-
tions 304
-------
 19896

follows: "Where the discharge described
In the Refuse Act permit application has
substantially changed  in  nature, vol-
ume or frequency,  the applicant shall
complete, sign and submit the appropri-
ate NPDES application form, as provided
In paragraph (g) or (h) of this section.
Where the  substantially  changed  dis-
charge involves addition  of  an  outlet
from which a discharge shall flow, the
appropriate fee will be calculated as pro-
vided in paragraph (i)  (1) or (2)  of this
section, after deduction of the fee sub-
mitted  with  the Refuse  Act   permit
application."
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS

§ 125.12   [Amended]
  3. In § 125.12(h)(l) "or the Director"
is added after "Regional Administrator."
  4.  In § 125.12
-------
                 V.5

                WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1974

                WASHINGTON, D.C.

                Volume 39 • Number 168

                PART III
                ENVIRONMENTAL
                    PROTECTION
                     AGENCY
                 WATER QUALITY AND
                  POLLUTANT SOURCE
                     MONITORING

                       Proposed Rules
So. 168~Pt. Ill	1
-------
31500
           PROPOSED  RULES
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                AGENCY

            [40 CFR Part 351
               IFRL222-6]

   WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTANT
         SOURCE MONITORING
     Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking
  Regulations ore hereby proposed  for
monitoring in State and interstate water
pollution control programs. Interim reg-
ulations were promulgated on June 29,
1973 to re-codify portions of 40 CFR Part
35, which pertain to grant awards  for
water pollution control  programs. The
Interim regulations were published with-
out Appendix A, Water Quality and Pol-
lutant Source Monitoring, which  is set
forth below.
  The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.),
stipulates  that no grant shall be  made
under Section 106 of the Act to any State,
beginning in fiscal year 1974, which has
not  provided or is not carrying out as
part  of  its  program  the establishment
and  operation of appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures neces-
sary  to  monitor,  and to compile and
analyze data on (including classification
according  to eutrophic  condition),  the
quality of navigable waters and to  the
extent  practicable, ground  waters  in-
cluding biological monitoring; and pro-
vision for annually updating such data
and including it in the  report required
under section 305 of the Act. Monitoring
is required by Titles I, II, HI and  IV of
the Act, and this Appendix sets forth the
monitoring requirement each State must
meet.
  The objectives of the State monitoring
program  required by these regulations
are to determine compliance with permit
terms and conditions,  to develop and
maintain an understanding of the qual-
ity (and causes and effects of such qual-
ity)  of all waters in the State  for  the
purpose of supporting  all  State  water
pollution control activities, to report on
such quality  and its causes  and effects,
and to assess  the effectiveness of  the
State's water pollution control program.
  The Director of  the water • pollution
control agency in.each State is required
to develop and implement a  strategy for
progressing systematically toward imple-
mentation of the requirements set forth
in this Appendix. The requirements  de-
scribed herein include:
  Development of a monitoring strategy;
  Coordination with other entitles;
  Support to the State continuing planning
process;
  Intensive monitoring surveys;
  A primary monitoring network;
  Compliance monitoring;
  Evaluation of water quality with respect
to standards;
  Toxic pollutant monitoring;
  Groundwater monitoring;
  Classification of publicly owned fresh wa-
ter lakes by eutrophic conditions;
  Laboratory support and quality assurance;
  Data reporting, handling, and storage;
  Collection, analysis, and  evaluation  of the
oaslc Information needed for the annual In-
ventory reports required by Section 305 (b)
of the Act; and
  Annual planning and reporting of program
accomplishments In monitoring.

  Interested parties are  encouraged to
submit written  comments-, suggestions,
views, or data concerning these proposed
regulations including views as to the de-
sirability of Issuing various  portions of
this information as a regulation or as a
guideline to: Director, Grants Adminis-
tration Division, Environmental Protec-
tion  Agency, Washington, D.C.  20460.
All information received on or before Oc-
tober 15, 1974, will be  considered before
final regulations are promulgated.

  Dated: August 15, 1974.

                     JOHN QUARLES,
                 Acting Administrator.

Appendix A—Water Quality and Pollutant
            Source Monitoring
  A. Purpose. This Appendix establishes and
codifies details of the grant award limitations
for monitoring described In Paragraph 35.559-
6 of this Part and sets forth the requirements
the States must meet to satisfy the monitor-
ing provisions in Titles I, II, III, and IV of the
Act.
  B. Objectives  and general requirements.
The objectives of the State monitoring pro-
gram required by the Act and these regula-
tions are to determine compliance with per-
mit  terms and conditions, to  develop and
maintain  an understanding of  the  quality
(and causes and effects of such quality) of
the waters in the State for the  purpose of
supporting State water pollution control ac-
tivities, to report on such quality and Its
causes and effects, and to assess  the  effec-
tiveness of the State's pollution control pro-
gram. To this end each State shall carry out
a broad range of monitoring activities both
before and after Implementing pollution con-
trols, including  measurement  of pollutant
sources, water quality, the factors affecting
water quality, and the specific effects of such
quality upon beneficial  uses of the State's
waters.
  C. Definitions. As used in this Appendix,
the following terms shall have the meaning
set forth below:
  (1) The  term "Act" means the  Federal
Water  Pollution Control Act,  as amended,
(33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.).
   (2)  The term "EPA"  or  "USEPA" means
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  (3) The  term "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the U.S.  Environmental
Protection  Agency.
   (4) The term  "Regional  Administrator"
means the  Regional Administrator of the
EPA Region of which the State is a part.
   (5) The term "Director" means the chief
administrative officer of a State or  Inter-
state  water  pollution control  agency.  In
the event that responsibility for water pol-
lution control and  enforcement Is  divided
among two or more State or Interstate  agen-
cies, the term "Director" means the admin-
istrative  officer  authorized  to  perform the
particular procedure referred to.
  (6) The term "basin" .means the streams,
rivers, lakes and  tributaries and the total
land  and  navigable water  area  contained
In one of the major or minor basins denned
by EPA, or other basin units as agreed upon
by the State (s)  and  the  Relgonal Admin-
istrator. Unless specified otherwise,  "basin"
shall refer only to those  portions within the
borders of a single State.
   (7)  The term "principal aquifer" means
an aquifer that serves a significant portion
of the population, yields a significant amount
of the water used in an  area, or is being, or
should be reserved for such use.
   (8) The term "segment" means a portion
of  a basin the navigable waters of which
have common hydrologlc characteristics (or
flow regulation patterns);  common natural
physical, chemical, and biological processes;
and common reactions to  external stresses,
e.g., discharge of pollutants.
  (9) The term "reach" means a subdivision
of a segment.
  (10) The term "water  quality limited seg-
ment" means any segment where it is known
that water quality does not meet applicable
water  quality standards and which is not
expected to meet  water quality standards
even  after the application  of the effluent
limitations required by sections 301(b) (1) (A)
and 301 (b) (1) (B) of the Act.
  (11)  The  term "principal  discharger"
means any person, who, in  the judgment
of the Director or Regional  Administrator,
is causing or may be causing serious or criti-
cal water quality  problems, or  who In the
judgment of the Director or Regional Ad-
ministrator should be designated as a princi-
pal discharger because of  condition of dis-
charge or substantial  pretreatment require-
ments.
  (12) The term "cluster" means two or more
dischargers  which discharge pollutants  In
such a way that the combination of their
effluents causes or may  cause water quality
standards to be violated.
  (13) The term  "National  Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) " means
the national system for  the Issuance of per-
mits under sections 402 and 405 of the Act
and includes any State or interstate program
approved by the Administrator, in whole or
in part,  pursuant  to Section  402 and 405 of
the Act.
  (14) The term "permit" means  any per-
mit or equivalent document or requirements
Issued by the Administrator, or, where appro-
priate, by the  Director  to regulate the dis-
charge of pollutants pursuant to section 318,
402, 404, and 405 of the Act.
  (15) The term  "discharger" means any
person responsible for  the discharge of  a
pollutant.
   (16) The  term  "parameter"  means   a
quantity or  characteristic which  describes
physical, chemical, or biological conditions
such  as:  temperature;  dissolved oxygen;
color;  count, species composition, or condi-
tion of aquatic organisms; streamflow; veloc-
ity; and area of channel cross-section.
  (17) The  term  "representative  point"
means a location in navigable waters, ground-
waters, sewer systems, or discharger facilities
at  which specific  conditions or parameters
may be  measured In such a manner as  to
characterize or approximate the same at some
other  location, or throughout a reach, seg-
ment, or body of water.
  (18) The term  "monitoring  station"  or
"station" means a representative point or a
point  of access to navigable  water, ground-
water, or pollutant discharge at which pa-
rameters have  been  measured, are  being
measured, or are planned to be measured.
   (19) The term  "self  monitoring"  means
any measuring and analyzing activities car-
ried out by a permittee in accordance with
permit requirements.
  (20) The term  "compliance  monitoring"
means measuring  and  analyzing pollutant
sources,  review  of reports  and information
obtained from dischargers, and all other ac-
tivities conducted  by  the Director, to detect
and/or verify violations of permit conditions,
such as effluent limits and compliance sched-
ules.
  (21) The term "Intensive survey"  means
the frequent sampling  or  measurement  of
parameters at a set of monitoring stations for
a relatively short period  of time to determine
cause, effect, or cause and effect relationships
of water quality conditions.
  (22) The term "mass  balance" means the
quantified account of Inputs, outputs, losses,
                               FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 168—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1974
-------
                                                       PROPOSED RULES
                                                                                51501
and storage of * material or constituent ID
• augment, reach, or body of water.
   (33)  The  term  "continuing  planning
process" or "planning  process" means  the
continuing planning process required by sec-
tion 303(e) of the Act and 40 CFR Parts 130
and 131.
   (34)  The term "significant  lake"  means
any publicly owned fresh water lake which
the Director designates as significant  for
reasons such as  recreational value, signifi-
cance of public use, eutrophlc condition, and
size.
   (25) The term "agricultural wastes" means
the  discharge  of  pollutants from agricul-
tural operations.
   (26) The term "rural runoff" means  the
nonpolnt source runoff from nonurban lands
in which  pollutants are carried into navi-
gable waters.
   (27)  The term  "monitoring   activity"
means any  of  the following  activities  de-
scribed In this  appendix: Coordination with
other entitles; planning process support; In-
tensive monitoring surveys  of  navigable
waters; state primary network monitoring;
compliance monitoring; evaluation of water
quality with  respect to standards;  toxic
pollutant monltorl&g; groundwater monitor-
ing; classification of publicly  owned fresh
water lakes by eutrophic conditions; labora-
tory support and quality assurance; data
reporting, handling and storage; annual re-
porting or any other monitoring activity car-
ried out by  the Director or required  by  the
Regional Administrator to meet or assist In
meeting any objective of the Act.
   (28) The definitions of the following terms
contained In section 502 of the Act shall be
applicable to such terms as used In this part
unless the context requires otherwise: "State
water  pollution  control  agency," "State,"
"pollutant,"  "discharge of  a pollutant,"
"effluent  limitation,"  "toxic  pollutant,"
"point source," "biological monitoring," "dis-
charge," "pollution," "navigable waters," and
"person".
  D. Eligibility. A  grant may be  awarded
to a State water pollution control  agency
which has submitted an application meeting
the program requirements of  these regula-
tions provided, however, that  the  Regional
Administrator has approved  the program In-
cluding specific  approval of the monitoring
program being carried out by the Director to
meet the requirements set forth In this Ap-
pendix. For interstate agencies, the Regional
Administrator may waive any requirement
set forth In this Appendix which la not  ap-
plicable to the  particular Interstate agency.
  E.  Monitoring   Strategy.   The   Direc-
tor shall develop, maintain, and implement
a Statewide monitoring strategy as part  of,
and consistent  with, the overall State strat-
egy required by regulations published pur-
suant to section 303 (e) of the Act In Fart
130 of this Chapter. The monitoring strategy
shall conform with  the requirements  of this
Appendix  and  the  Regional Administrator,
and it shall:
   (1) Detail the present monitoring  activi-
ties being carried out by the Director  as well
as those being  carried out by  other entities
insofar as the Director relies upon them to
satisfy requirements of this Appendix;
   (2) Describe the monitoring plan  neces-
sary to progress systematically toward  im-
plementation of these regulations. The plan
shall define the monitoring program to be
achieved by June 30, 1977, set  the priorities
for attainment of the several monitoring ac-
tivities required by this Appendix, estimate
the level of resources which will be applied
to  each  activity,  show  milestones with
planned dates  of Implementation, and  de-
scribe generally what will be done In each of
the monitoring acti"lties. The program to be
achieved by June 30, 1977,  shall be defined
In a manner consistent with anticipated pro-
gram emphasis as determined from the EPA
water  quality  strategy  paper,  the overall
State strategy. State needs, and requirements
of the Regional Administrator.
  The monitoring strategy shall be submitted
to the Regional  Administrator by  June 15,
1976, as part of the State's program submis-
sion and  need not be submitted In subse-
quent  years, except  when  changes to the
strategy  are  made, or  as required by the
Regional  Administrator. The Regional Ad-
ministrator  shall  review  the  monitoring
strategy of each State and Interstate pollu-
tion control agency  grant  recipient  each
year and  require that it be revised or up-
graded If In his judgment either the  monitor-
ing program or strategy is inadequate to meet
the requirements set forth In this Part.
  P.   Program   Accomplishment   Plan-
ning and Review. As part  of the  midyear
program   assessment  described  In  40  CPR
95.560.1 (a), State representatives shall meet
with EPA Regional Office representatives to
discuss accomplishments and difficulties en-
countered In fulfilling the monitoring  strat-
egy, to plan for  monitoring In the coming
year, to discuss proposed strategy modifica-
tions, and to exchange Ideas of mutual  Inter-
est relating to monitoring.
  O.  Coordination   vrith  other  entities.
The monitoring   activities  carried   out
pursuant to these regulations are the respon-
sibility of the Director. However, monitoring
activities  conducted by other State  and Fed-
eral agencies,  organizations,  legal  subdivi-
sions of the State, and municipalities should
be encouraged and integrated into the State
monitoring program where  possible to help
meet requirements set forth under this Part,
provided that laboratory support and quality
assurance requirements specified herein are
satisfied.
  The Director is encouraged to utilize the
Catalog of Information on Water Data, main-
tained by the  Office of Water Data coordi-
nation (OWPC)  of the VS. Department of
Interior (USDI) and  the related water-data
progiam  and coordination activities of the
OWDC In developing and carrying out the
monitoring   activities  required by   these
regulations.
  H. Planning process  support.  (1)  Water
quality conditions Including causes  and
effects, must be measured where needed
to support the State's continuing  planning
process. Monitoring for  this purpose  must
be conducted In such a manner as to enable
prediction of environmental changes In re-
ceiving water resulting from pollution con-
trol actions, changes in pollution loads, and
changes in hydrologlc regimes. After imple-
menting   pollution controls,  measurements
of causes and effects  of pollution, including
the physical, chemical, and biological  con-
ditions Involved,  are  required to determine
the extent to which the control actions taken
were successful,  and  to update  or redirect
pollution control plans.
  (2) Monitoring before and  after Imple-
menting  pollution controls  in areas of sig-
nificant pollution sources,  clustered  pollu-
tion sources, localized nonpolnt sources  of
pollution, and  major  bodies of water which
are known or suspected to be accumulating
pollutants should consist of intennive sur-
veys, described In Paragraph I below, which
Include analyses' of  the pollution sources
and receiving waters.
  (3)  Compliance monitoring  data,  self
monitoring data,  and data obtained  from the
State primary monitoring network  must be
evaluated by the Director each year  to deter-
mine whether the cause and effect  relation-
ships  found  through   previous   surveys
continue to be valid In accounting for cur-
rent water quality. When such relationships
are found to be no longer valid, the pollutant
sources and receiving  waters'must'be re-sur-
veyed to support  the continuing planning
process.
  I, Intensive monitoring  surveys  of  navi-
gable waters. Intensive monitoring surveys
shall  be conducted In navigable waters for
the following purposes:
  (1) Betting priorities for  establishing or
Improving pollution controls;
  (3) Determining quantitative  cause  and
effect relationships of water quality, Includ-
ing measuring and evaluating the contribu-
tion of pollutants to navigable waters and/or
groundwaters from   point  and  nonpolnt
sources and determining the biological, phys-
ical, chemical, and eutrophlc conditions of
publicly owned fresh water lakes;
  (3) Obtaining data for  updating  water
quality management  plans,  and where ap-
propriate, setting effluent limits and verify-
ing the classifications of segments developed
pursuant to Parts 130 and 131 of this Chap-
ter;
  (4) Determining the extent to which pol-
lution control actions taken were success-
ful;
  (5) Assisting, where necessary, to deter-
mine whether or not given  discharges will,
or do comply with section 801, 302, 306 or
307 of the Act;
  (6) Determining any  additional  water
quality management actions required.
  An annual schedule of surveys to be con-
ducted shall be submitted to EPA with the
State program submission. The levels of ef-
fort  devoted  to a given monitoring survey
shall  depend upon the  severity and com-
plexity of the pollution problem in the sur-
vey area. For special purpose studies, the
Regional Administrator may waive any par-
ticular requirements  set  forth below for In-
tensive surveys.
  The Intensive surveys  shall  provide the
basis for analyzing water quality conditions
within the survey area  and for evaluating
the adequacy of the design and  operation of
the  treatment  facilities for all  principal
municipal  and Industrial dischargers affect-
ing the study area. Station locations, param-
eter  coverage, and sampling frequencies for
Intensive surveys  shall be consistent  with
particular  objectives  of the  study  and with
known  or  suspected  forms  and variability
of pollution occurring  In the survey  area,
and  shall be as follows:
  (1) Station locations. Monitoring stations
shall  be located In the survey area In such
a manner as to measure Inputs,  transforma-
tions, movements, and outputs of pollutants
within, to, and from the survey  area, In-
cluding stations located as follows:
  (a) In wastewater outfalls or at represent-
ative  sites for measuring pollutant contri-
butions from point and nonpoint sources:
  (b) In receiving waters including stations
to define mixing and stratification charac-
teristics  and  profiles  or  gradients  of  water
quality with respect to distance, and, where
necessary, for determining mass balances of
pollutants;
  (c) At study area boundaries  for measur-
ing flow and water quality entering and leav-
ing the study area;
  (d) At locations particularly  selected for
biological monitoring;
  (e) In  sediment deposits for measuring
benthic demands, concentrations of pollut-
ants In sediments, and the extent  to which
sediments  act as  sinks  or sources for the
various constituents  of the  water,  and for
Investigating, where needed, sediment trans-
port of pollutants;
  (f) At locations as may  be  required to
define other pollutant sources, factors,  and
sinks for completing determinations of  mass
balances of pollutants.
  (2) Parameter  coverage.  The  physical.
chemical,  biological,  microbiological,   hy-
draulic, hydrologlc, climatic, and geometric
parameters to be measured during  monitor -
                                FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOl.  39,  NO. 168—WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST 28,  1974
-------
 31502
           PROPOSED  RULES
Ing  surveys  will depend upon the  survey
purpose and local conditions, and should be
tailored to  the specific  pollution problem*
of the  area. However, all surveys shall In-
clude, at representative sites, measurements
of dissolved oxygen,  temperature,  specific
conductance, pH, and pollutants known or
suspected to be entering the navigable waters
of the survey area from specific point sources
of pollution. All surveys of flowing streams
shall include measurements of streamflow or
estimates thereof where measurement is not
possible or practical.
  Depending upon  the survey  purpose  and
local conditions within the study area, some
or all of the following parameters shall be
measured where needed to satisfy objectives
of the particular study and to fulfill require-
ments set by the Regional Administrator:
  (a.) Water quality and related parameters
which measure  Intermediate forms or  final
effects of pollutants—such  as  nutrients In
various  forms, and standing crop of plankton,
periphyton,  or aquatic plants—to determine
rates of transformation of water constituents
from one form to another and  to determine
balances of materials affecting water quality;
  (b) Biological parameters to evaluate the
balance and condition  of communities of
aquatic organisms and eutrophic conditions.
Including standing crop, diversity of aquatic
communities,  and  Indicator organisms, In
accordance with, but  not limited to, param-
eters listed in Table 1;
  (c) Biologically   related   chemical   and
physical measurements,  analyses, and  ob-
servations,  including chemical  analyses of
tissue of aquatic organisms as necessary to
determine the presence and  extent of toxic
materials;
  (d) Microbiological parameters, where ap-
propriate,  including  indicator organisms
and/or  specific  pathogens  In  water, sedi-
ments, and aquatic  biota Including shellfish;
  (e) Hydraulic and geometric parameters
of the streams and bodies of waters  in the
study area If such data are not  otherwise
available at representative sites. Such param-
eters  Include   cross-sectional   area  and
depth, or mean width  and depth;   stream
velocities or times of travel  related to flow
in streams  and estuaries;  stage  measure-
ments in tidal waters and lakes  where water
quality  Is affected by stage variations.
  (3) Sampling Frequencies. Sampling  fre-
quencies must be determined on the basis of
the  variability of each  of  the parameters
associated with  the pollution problem,  and
must be adequate  to define the pollution
problem within statistically determined con-
fidence  Intervals acceptable to  the Regional
Administrator.   The  sampling  frequencies
during  Intensive surveys must be adequate
to determine mass  balances of pollutants
where  necessary to define  fluctuations of
water quality and related parameters In re-
ceiving  waters  and pollutant sources. Most
stations close to pollution sources, in tidal
waters,  or where diurnal or dlel variations
occur, must be sampled  several  times a day
during  intensive surveys so as to define the
behavior of  the pollutants and receiving
water during each Intensive survey.
  In complex problem areas, monitoring sur-
veys should be conducted in more than one
season In such a manner as to reflect seasonal
variations in water quality.
  Each  year, prior to approval of the State
program for the  next  year, the Regional
Administrator may  require that the Director
Include, in the design of any survey(s) to te
conducted in the next year, monitoring re-
quirements with respect to any one or a com-
bination of the following:
   (a) Sampling frequencies;
   (b) Parameters to be measured;
   (c) Station locations; and
   (d) Time of survey.
  The Regional Administrator may likewise
require Intensive surveys on reaches or seg-
ments to provide a basis for setting effluent
limits where,  in  his  Judgment, monitoring
data show that such reaches or segments ars
water quality  limited.
  J.   State  primary  network  monitoring.
To  establish  baselines  of water  quality,
to  assist   in  determining  whether  or
not pollutant  dischargers comply with sec-
tions 301, 302, 306 and 307 of  the Act, to
maintain cognizance  of water quality con-
ditions throughout the State and to obtain
basic information needed for reports required
by Section 306(b) of the Act, the Director
shall  establish and maintain  a network of
primary water monitoring stations in naviga-
ble waters  for use in obtaining physical,
chemical, and  biological data, as well as data
taking into account seasonal, tidal, and other
variations.  The  network shall be  designed
and operated In such a manner as to provide
Information which, when taken in combina-
tion with compliance monitoring data, self
monitoring data, and information from in-
tensive surveys, will  show whether and to
what degree water quality management ac-
tivities are  protecting  the quality of the
State's navigable waters.
  The number and location of monitoring
stations, parameter coverage,  and sampling
frequencies  must be  adequate to represent
the quality  of the navigable waters  of the
State in the  annual  Inventory reports re-
quired under Section 305(b) of the Act. Sta-
tion  locations,  parameter coverage,  and
sampling frequencies shall be as follows:
  (1) Station  Locations.  Various types of
monitoring  stations Including stations for
monitoring  stream  quality,  lake   quality,
estuarlne and  coastal water quality, biologi-
cal conditions,  hydrologlc  conditions, and
sediment  conditions, are  required hi the
primary network. Primary  stations shall be
located In navigable waters as  follows unless
water quality  at such locations may be rep-
resented by other stations:
  (a) At a  point within  Intensive  survey
areas, which on the basis of information from
such surveys,  represents reaches having the
most critical water quality problems;
  (b)  At stations upstream and  downstream
of major population and/or Industrial centers
on flowing streams where it  Is possible to
sample stream quality in a manner to repre-
sent differences In such quality occurring as
a result of pollutant discharges from such
centers;
  (c)  At points  within  lakes, reservoirs,
estuaries,  and coastal  waters as  necessary
to measure water quality,  eutrophic condi-
tion, blo-accumulatlon,  and accumulation of
pollutants In water and sediments;
  (d) In major high quality water use areas,
such  as public water supply Intakes, shell-
fish harvesting areas, and recreational areas;
  (e) In stream-bed sediments;
  (f) Within  each morphologic  zone In the
State  (I.e.,  mountains, piedmont,  coastal
plain) where access Is practicable. Such sta-
tions shall  be located  in  stream segments
largely unaffected by man's activities for de-
termining background levels or  baselines of
water quality and biological populations.
  (2)  Parameter  Coverage and  Sampling
Frequencies.  Water  quality  samples  and
measurements must be  representative of the
variations In  water.quality and changes In
pollution occurring during  the year. Stream-
flow shall be  determined concurrently  with
water  Quality  measurements at all primary
stations »n rivers and streams. Flow may be
determined either by  direct measurement or
by  estimation using  nearby stream  gauges
or  measurements  at  representative  sites
following  guidelines  for  measurement of
flows presented in the Federal  interagency
report, Recommended  Methods  for Water
Data Acquisition  (OWDC,  USDI).  Stage or
water surface elevation shall be determined
concurrently with  water quality measure-
ments in lakes, reservoirs and estuaries If
and where water quality variations are  ap-
parently related  to stage variations. Sam-
pling frequencies shall conform to minimum
requirements Indicated in parentheses below
unless the Director and the Regional Admin-
istrator concur that representation of water
quality can be equalled or improved by utiliz-
ing  other frequencies with acceptable  re-
source commitments; In that case, such other
frequencies shall be used. Parameter cover-
age  and sampling frequencies  for each pri-
mary station  agreed upon  by the  Director
and the  Regional  Administrator shall  In-
clude, where relevant:
  (a) Parameters known or suspected to be
associated with major  upstream pollution
sources such as areas of high population, in-
dustrial centers, agricultural and urban run-
off,  and  mine  drainage;  and  parameters
specifically  mentioned in the  State's water
quality standards relating to  the sampling
area  (monthly or more often as necessary
to be  representative of  variations in water
quality during the year);
  (b)  Stage measurements In tidal waters
and measurements of  fresh water Inflow to
estuaries  (concurrently  with water quality
measurements, measured or estimated from
measurements at representative sites, taking
into account flushing  times and  tidal phas-
ing);
  (c)  Heavy  metals and other  toxic ma-
terials, oil and grease, chemical  oxygen  de-
mand, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,  and  pesti-
cides, in sediments at sediment stations (an-
nually) ;
  (d)  Dissolved  oxygen, temperature,  spe-
cific  conductance,  and  pH,  at all  primary
monitoring  stations (monthly beginning in
Fiscal Year 1975);
  (e) Total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitro-
gen, dissolved nitrite plus nitrate, total or-
ganic carbon, and chemical oxygen demand
at all primary monitoring stations (monthly
beginning in Fiscal Year 1976);
  (f) Biological parameters at selected sta-
tions,  including  chlorophyll a and param-
eters sufficient to evaluate the balances  and
conditions  of indigenous  communities  of
aquatic organisms, including  standing crop,
species diversity, and the presence or absence
of indicator organisms in accordance with,
but not  limited  to,  parameters and fre-
quencies shown In Table 1;
  (g)  Biologically  related  chemical   and
physical analyses and observations at selected
stations, Including  chemical analyses of tis-
sue as necessary to determine presence, ex-
tent,  and   Impact   of  toxic   pollutants
designated under Section 307(a)  of the  Act
(annually);
  (h)  Microbiological parameters, both Indi-
cator organisms and specific pathogens where
appropriate, In both  navigable  waters  and
commercially harvestable  shellfish  sampled
at  selected  stations  (as required).
  Each year, prior  to  approval of the State
program for the next year, the Regional  Ad-
ministrator  may  require  that  additional
measurements be made in the primary net-
work during the next year at specific new,
or  previously established, stations and  fre-
quencies  and for particular  parameters if,
in  his Judgment,  the primary  monitoring
network is deficient In such respects.
  K. Compliance  monitoring.  Compliance
monitoring  requirements for a given State
shall be carried out as follows:
  (1) In States having approved NPDES per-
mit programs, the Director  shall carry  out
monitoring  activities  to  determine compli-
ance with permits, to  validate self-monitor-
ing reports, and as necessary, to provide Sup-
port for enforcement actions. Procedures for
carrying out such activities shall be as mu-
tually agreed upon by the Director  and  the
                                FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 168—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1974
-------
                                                       PROPOSED RULES
                                                                               31503
Regional Administrator. The  Director shall
Inspect the facilities of dischargers, described
in Subparagraphs (a),  (b), and (c) below,
including, where appropriate, effluent sam-
pling and examination of monitoring records,
reports, equipment, and methods. Such in-
spections are required as follows:
  (a)  Principal  Dischargers—The  Director
shall designate  principal dischargers and
identify  them  as such In the  list of dis-
chargers required by  Subpart D of Part 130
of this chapter. The Regional Administrator
may Identify specific dischargers which the
Director shall  designate  as  principal dis-
chargers.  The  Director shall update such
identifications in the list  of dischargers and
assure, each year, that they are accurate. The
Director  shall conduct inspections, includ-
ing  effluent sampling,  at least once each
year at the facilities of  all dischargers desig-
nated as principal dischargers;
  (b)   Selected   Dischargers—Inspections,
with or without effluent sampling, as appro-
priate, shall be conducted at the facilities of
selected  dischargers  not  included  in Sub-
paragraph (a) above. The method of select'
ing such other dischargers to be Inspected
shall be  based upon  random  selection each
year or shall be as mutually agreed upon by
the Director and Regional Administrator;
  (c) Follow-Up  Investigations—The Direc-
tor shall review self-monitoring data, reports
obtained from  permittees, complaintr,, data
obtained from  activities  described in Sub-
paragraph (a)  and (b)  above, and any other
available data  sources for the purpose of
identifying permit violations  and permittee
report errors. When permit violations are in-
dicated, the Director  shall take appropriate
action in accordance with the Act and Parts
124 and 125 of this Chapter.
  (2) In States not having approved NPDES
permit  programs,  but having authorities
similar to those provided  under Section 308
of the Act,  the Director  may to the extent
authorized by  the Regional  Administrator,
conduct  inspections  similar  to those  de-
scribed in Subparagraph  (1)  above In con-
nection with EPA issued permits.
  (3) While conformance with the quality
assurance requirements described  In  Para-
graph P below is required In  all monitoring
activities included  In this Appendix, extra-
ordinary emphasis shall  be placed  upon
quality  assurance in  the  compliance moni-
toring activities, and all samples shall be col-
lected, preserved, and analyzed in accordance
with the quality control requirements  de-
scribed in Paragraph P.
  L. Evaluation  of  Water   Quality  With
Respect  to  Standards.   In  each   State,
the  Director  shall  review  data  obtained
from the primary monitoring network  and
any  other available pertinent data for the
purpose of identifying waters  apparently not
in compliance with water quality standards.
In the event that such  noncompliance Is in-
dicated, the Director shall evaluate the appar-
ent violations and proceed as in Subparagraph
K (1) (c) above; In States not having approved
NPDES permit programs, he shall notify the
Regional Administrator of the violations in
amutually agreed upon manner. The Director
shall also take appropriate action  through
the  State's  continuing planning process in
the event of such violations.  Intensive sur-
veys, described in  Paragraph I above, may
be required in such cases to  determine the
magnitude, extent, and cause  of violations.
  M. Toxic Pollutant  Monitoring.  Studies
and  systematic  sample  collection  from
navigable waters, groundwaters, sediments,
and biological  communities are required to
determine whether toxic pollutants,  desig-
nated under Section  307(a)  of  the Act, are
entering the State's water and for determin-
ing their origin and  the  priority for appro-
priate  control action in the event they are
found.
  N.  Groundwater  Monitoring.  The   Di-
rector  shall designate  principal  aquifers
in  a  manner  mutually agreeable  to  the
Regional Administrator. In the designation
of principal aquifers, the  Director should
utilize  aquifer  testing  and  classification
methodology presented in the Federal inter-
agency report, Recommended  Methods for
Water-Data Acquisition  (OWDC, TTSDI) for
developing and carrying out the State-wide
ground water monitoring program. Initial des-
ignation shall be  completed in Fiscal  Year
1975, based upon existing data, and updated
as necessary. To the extent practicable, the
Director  shall establish and  maintain  a
State-wide groundwater monitoring program
which  shall consist of a  network of ground-
water  quality monitoring stations sampled
in a systematic manner and designed to de-
termine  baseline  conditions  and  provide
early detection of pollution.  A program of
identification and  surveillance of existing
and potential groundwater pollution sources
shall complement  this network.
  Ground water quality monitoring shall be
conducted at representative points relative to
groundwater pollution sources and In areas
of  high  utilization  of  groundwater.  The
location of groundwater monitoring stations
will be dictated by the type and distribution
of  potential pollution  sources.  Selected
water supply wells may be utilized for mon-
itoring purposes. However, installation of ad-
ditional monitoring  wells may be necessary
where  experience shows that existing wells
and other groundwater  monitoring stations
do not provide adequate coverage.
  Parameter coverage will vary with natural
and manmade conditions and  with  use of
the groundwater. Sampling frequency will be
dictated by local conditions and the potential
threats involved. Each  year, prior to approval
of the State program for the  next year, the
Regional  Administrator  may  require  that
additional  groundwater  measurements  be
made during the next year at specific loca-
tions  and  frequencies  and for  particular
parameters If, in his judgment, the State's
groundwater monitoring program Is deficient
in such  respects.  Oroundwater related in-
ventories are required  as follows:
  (1) Inventory of Groundwater Monitoring
Stations—The  Director  shall  develop  and
maintain  an inventory of existing  wells
which  are or may be  suitable for Inclusion
in the State-wide groundwater monitoring
network. This Inventory shall be developed
by April 15, 1976, and shall be updated as
additional wells are selected or  installed for
the  purpose  of  determining  groundwater
quality in accordance with this  Appendix.
Types  of  groundwater  quality  monitoring
wells to be identified in the inventory In-
clude,  but are not  limited to, wells for saline
water  intrusion monitoring, baseline  mon-
itoring, routine monitoring in zones of high
utilization of groundwater, and monitoring
in the  vicinity of pollution sources. The Cata-
log of Information  on  Water  Data, main-
tained by the OWDC,  TJSDI, should be con-
sulted  and utilized to  the extent practicable
In developing the  inventory.
  (2)  Inventory of  Groundwater Pollution
Sources—Monitoring is required of waste dis-
posal sites and other pollution sources which
pollute or  threaten pollution of the ground-
waters of the State. Where appropriate, the
types of pollution sources to be  monitored
Include,  but are not  limited  to, Injection
wells, sanitary landfills,  chemical  stockpiles,
municipal  and Industrial waste lagoons,
waste holding ponds, and sludge drying beds.
Each State shall  develop an  Inventory of
groundwater pollution sources  by April 15,
1976, and  thereafter the inventory shall be
updated annually.
  O. Classification of Puoicly Owned Fresh
Water Lakes by Eutrophic Conditions. As part
of maintaining an understanding of the na-
ture and extent of water quality conditions
for the State, the Director shall prepare by
April 15,1975, an inventory of publicly owned
fresh water lakes Including  descriptive in-
formation on lakes which the Director desig-
nates as significant.  The Director  shall pro-
vide the Regional  Administrator with  a
description of the criteria  used in selecting
lakes to be designated as significant and shall
maintain the Inventory and  Improve  it as
additional pertinent  information is obtained.
The principal emphasis In preparing, main-
taining,  and improving  the inventory  shall
be in obtaining information  on lakes which
exhibit noticeable eutrophy. Initially,  the In-
ventory may include estimates when specific
information  Is not  known. It  shall include
the  following information for lakes  or the
portions thereof which are included  within
the State:
   (1) Number and  total combined area of
publicly owned fresh water lakes;
   (2) Number and  total combined area of
significant lakes;
   (3) Number and  total combined area of
significant lakes -which  are known to  exhibit
noticeable eutrophy as indicated  by  abnor-
mal quantities  or  types of algae, aquatic
plants, sedimentation, and other specified in-
dicators or  environmentally  modifying fac-
tors. Such other Indicators may include dis-
solved oxygen, pH,  total phosphorous,  total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, and  total organic carbon,
particularly If their measured or estimated
values are beyond the limits  of  applicable
water quality standards;
   (4) Number and  total combined area of
significant lakes that are known to exhibit no
noticeable eutrophy  or other problems;
   (5) Number and  total combined area of
significant lakes for which the presence or
absence of noticeable eutrophy is not known.
  For each significant lake or reservoir that
exhibits noticeable eutrophy or other prob-
lems,  the  following information  must  be
supplied;
   (1) Name, location, average depth,  acres
of  lake  surface  area, and square miles of
drainage  area  contributing  surface  water
runoff to the lake;
   (2) Nature of problem reported as algae,
aquatic plants,  sedimentation, and/or other
specified indicators or environmentally modi-
fying factors;
   (3) Cause(s)  of problem reported for each
of the following categories as principal cause,
intermediate contributing  cause, or not ap-
plicable as identifiable cause;
   (a) Municipal waste  (including  names or
appropriate   identification  of   municipal
sources),
   (b)  Industrial waste (Including names of
appropriate   Identification  of   industrial
sources),
   (c) Septic tanks,
   (d)  Agricultural wastes,
   (e) Urban storm drainage (including names
or   appropriate   identification  of  urban
sources),
   (f) Rural  runoff,
   (g) Natural,
   (h)  Other (Identify).
   (4) Narrative comments when needed for
clarification.
  P.  Laboratory   Support   and   Quality
Assurance.  The  State  water  monitoring
program  shall  produce  data  and  infor-
mation which may  be used to describe the
quality of State waters and characteristics
of pollution sources  in an accurate and con-
sistent  manner.  Emphasis shall  be  placed
upon quality assurance, and all samples re-
quired by this Appendix shall be  collected.
preserved, and analyzed In accordance  with
                                FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 39,  NO. 168—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1974
-------
 31504
           PROPOSED RULES
th» quality control requirements set  forth
in this paragraph.
  Laboratories  (or combinations  of Labora-
tories) supporting the State monitoring pro-
grain stall provide physical, professional, and
analytical capabilities and quality assurance
as follows:
   (1) Physical  and professional capabilities
shall  be adequate  to  perform analyses, In
compliance  with Items 2 thru 8 below,  for
each  of the water quality measurements
listed In regulations published in Fart  136
of Subchapter D of this Chapter, pursuant to
Section 3O4
-------
                                   PROPOSED  RULES

                                 TABLI I.—Biological monitoring
31505
Community and parameter
Plankton:
Counts and identification 	 ....
Chlorophylls 	 	 ...,.»_,.„.
Biomass as ash-tree weight- ....
Peri phy ton:
Counts and identification.
Chlorophyll a 	
Biomass as ash-free weight
Macrophyton:
Identification 	

Macro-i n vertebrate :
Biomass as ash-tree weight 	
Flesh tainting

Fish:
Toxic substances in tissue * 	



Flesh tainting


Priority i
	 1
2

1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2

Collection and
analysis method *
Grab samples


Artificial substrates



prescribe.


substrates.


Electroftshing or
netting.





Sampling frequency *

tall.


periods'of peak peri phy ton popu"
Fation density and/or diversity.



sity.










  ' Priority: 1—Minimum program, 2—Add as soon as capability can be developed.
  < See "Biological Field and Laboratory Methods lor Measuring the Quality ol Surface Water and Effluents."
  i Keyed to dynamics ot community.
  ' See "Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Human and Environmental Samples," U8EPA, Perrine Primate P.e-
searoh Laboratories, Perrine, Fl. 32157 (1970); and "Pesticide Analytical Manual," USDHEW, FDA, Washington,
D.C.

                           [FB Doc.74-19547 Filed 8-27-74;8:45 am]
           FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 39, NO. 168—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1974
-------
      VI.



OTHER REGULATIONS
-------
                  VI. 1
                 FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1974

                 WASHINGTON, D.C.

                 Volume 39 • Number 160


                 PART II
                  ENVIRONMENTAL
                     PROTECTION
                      AGENCY
                     SMALL BUSINESS
                    Water Pollution Control Plans
Ho. 160—Pt. II	1
-------
 29692
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
        SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL
              (FRL 190-4]
      PART 21—SMALL BUSINESS
      Notice of Interim Rulemaking
  Notice Is hereby given that the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency Intends to
amend  Subchapter A, Chapter 1, Title
40, CFR, to Implement section 8 of the
Federal  Water Pollution  Control  Act
Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500).
  Section 8 of  Pub. L. 92-500  amended
section  7 of the Small Business Act,  15
U.S.C. 636, to authorize  loans to assist
small business concerns in adding to  or
altering  their  equipment,  facilities,  or
methods of  operation In order to meet
the water pollution control requirements
established under the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act. A  prerequisite to re-
ceiving such a loan is a written statement
Issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency  or (if  appropriate)  the State,
certifying that the additions, alterations,
or methods of operation  are "necessary
and adequate" to comply with  pollution
control  requirements  established under
the Act. These Interim regulations de-
scribe the uniform rules for issuing such
statements.
  Small business concerns can be eligible
for an SBA loan if the additions, altera-
tions, or methods of operation necessary
for pollution control  result from their
engaging In one or more of the following
activities:
  1. The business has a discharge re-
quiring  permitting under section 402  of
the Act.
  2. The business discharges into a pub-
licly owned  treatment works which re-
quires pretreatment by the business.
  3. The business plans to discharge into
a municipal sewer  system through the
construction of a lateral or interceptor
sewer.
  4. The business is subject to the re-
quirements of a State or areawide au-
thority  for  controlling the disposal  of
pollutants that may affect groundwater.
  5. The business requires a Corps of En-
gineers  permit for dredged or fill mate-
rial.
  6. The business is  subject to Coast
Guard or State requirements  regarding
the standard of performance of marine
sanitation  devices  controlling sewage
from vessels.
  7. The business is implementing a plan
to control or prevent the  discharge  or
spill of oil or other hazardous substances.
  EPA's role under these  guidelines is to
determine the sufficiency of the proposed
additions or alterations  of equipment,
facilities,  or methods of  operation  in
meeting water pollution control require-
ments. To receive the requisite statement
from  EPA, an  applying  small business
concern need not demonstrate that  all
its activities or discharges will meet  all
applicable requirements under  the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act. It need
only show that the additions, alterations,
or methods  of operation  for which it is
applying for SBA financing are necessary
and adequate for  compliance with one
or more at such applicable requirements.
  EPA will not determine the cost-effec-
tiveness of the proposed additions or al-
terations nor will It assess whether  or
not  other more efficient or technically
superior alternatives exist. However, EPA
will attempt to Identify those components
of the additions, alterations, or methods
of operation  which appear  to be ex-
traneous to the  achievement of the de-
gree of pollution abatement required  by
an applicable standard.
  EPA will not Issue statements to appli-
cants for loans to be applied solely to the
preparation or undertaking of plans  to
determine feasibility,  or design for an-
ticipated  construction.  However,  this
provision  does not later preclude SBA
financial assistance being utilized for de-
sign, plans, and specification work which
are a part of the additions, alterations,
or methods  of operation deemed neces-
sary and adequate by EPA. This exclu-
sion results from the very nature of the
activity conducted, in that no determina-
tion can be  made  of the adequacy  or
necessity of designs, plans, or specifica-
tions until they have been finished.
  The review by  EPA will be a technical
review, with review of the applicant's
eligibility  as a small business and  for
the amount  of financial assistance  re-
quested to be conducted by SBA.
  The application for EPA-issued state-
ments will not generally be subject  to
public notice or hearings but will  be
available for public Inspection during the
period of review by the Regional Admin-
istrator or during  the period of appeal.
However,  information adequately  Iden-
tified to the Regional Administrator  as
being entitled to protection as a  trade
secret shall  be treated confidentially  by
the Agency. The Regional Administrator
shall, when necessary, provide public no-
tice and conduct a public hearing regard-
Ing a specific application if he believes
that the proposed addition, alteration, or
method of operation may adversely  af-
fect an interest of the public.
  Applicants are reminded that the pen-
alties provided uijder 18 U.S.C.  1001 and
18 U.S.C. 286 can be ap, .ed against in-
dividuals who modify, change, or alter
any statements as issued, or who submit
an  application containing false Infor-
mation.
  Section 7 of the Small Business Act
makes no attempt to apportion responsi-
bilities between the  States  and  EPA.
However,  provision is made for States,
upon application to EPA and  approval
by EPA, to conduct a program for issuing
statements under these regulations. Since
many applications for additions, altera-
tions, or methods of  operation are de-
signed to meet requirements issued and
enforced by the  States pursuant to pro-
grams under various sections of the Act,
States are encouraged to accept the re-
sponsibilities for conducting such a pro-
gram, and may use funds authorized un-
der  section  106 of the  Act  for this
purpose.
  Applicants will also be subject to sepa-
rate  regulations promulgated  by  the
Small Business Administration with re-
gard  to their  financial  eligibility and
which establish procedures  concerning
applications to SBA for loan assistance.
  This regulation does not apply to re-
quests for loans to assist small businesses
In meeting a compliance requirement un-
der the Clean Air Act as authorized by
the Small Business  Act, section 7(b) (5).
A separate program and  procedures will
be established for these  loans. It is ex-
pected that the Small Business Adminis-
tration will coordinate directly with the
Individual  State air pollution control
agencies In this regard.
  Questions  have  been  raised whether
the Intent of section 8 can  be fulfilled
with  a more simplified procedure  than
that set forth In these Interim regula-
tions. In particular, the  Agency Invites
comments and suggestions as to the ex-
tent to which the Agency furnishing the
statement (EPA or State) could rely upon
certifications of adequacy  furnished by
Independent  consulting  engineers.  Fol-
lowing the receipt of any  such comments
and suggestions, the Agency intends to
review the desirability of a more simpli-
fied administrative system  for Imple-
menting Section 8  and consider appro-
priate modifications to these regulations.
  Interested  persons are invited to sub-
mit comments on these  interim regula-
tions  to: Chief, Water Program Planning
and Accomplishment Branch (AW-454);
Office of Air and Water  Programs; En-
vironmental  Protection  Agency;   East
Tower-Room  815;  401  M Street  SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments re-
ceived within 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice in the FEDERAL
REGISTER will be considered  before the
re"tilations are promulgated as final. All
comments received  will be available for
public inspection during normal working
hours at the above locat.'  n.
  In  a proposed form, these  regulations
were  reviewed by other Federal agencies
and  States.  Comments  were received
from  the Departments of Commerce and
Interior, the Small Business Administra-
tion, and the State  of Pennsylvania.
  These regulations are  being  issued as
Interim regulations, with the customary
requirement for public comment on pro-
posed rulemaking  suspended,  because
the Agency has determined that some
small  businesses  are presently subject
to permit conditions that involve  their
taking immediate steps to  secure finan-
cial assistance to undertake the neces-
sary  facility modifications or construc-
tion.
  The Agency does not  wish to impede
these  small  businesses  from presently
securing an advantageous form of finan-
cial assistance—small business loans—
which could be a  result of publishing
these regulations as proposed rulemak-
ing.
  These regulations will become effective
on August 16,1974.
                    JOHN QUARLES,
                Acting Administrator.

  AUGUST 9,1974.
                               FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL.  39, NO. 160—FRIDAY, AUGUST 16,  1974
-------
                                               RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                               29693
Sec.
21.4
21.6
21.6
21.7
21.8
21.9
21.10
21.11
21.12
Scope.
Definitions.
Submission of applications.
Review of applications.
Issuance of statements.
Exclusions.
Reserved.
Resubmlssion of application.
Appeals.
Utilization of the statement.
Public participation.
State Issued statements.
  AUTHORITY: (16 U.S.C. 638) , as amended by
Pub. L. 92-500.

§ 21.1   Scope.
  This part establishes procedures for
the Issuance by EPA of the statements,
referred to In section 7(g) of the Small
Business Act and  section 8 of the Fed-
eral   Water   PoUution  Control  Act
Amendments of 1972, to the effect that
additions to or  alterations in the equip-
ment, facilities (including the  construc-
tion of pretreatment facilities and Inter-
ceptor sewers) , or methods of  operation
of small business concerns are  neces-
sary  and adequate to comply with re-
quirements established under  the Fed-
eral  Water Pollution Control Act,  33
U.S.C. 1151,etseq.

§ 21.2   Definitions.
  (a) "Small business concern" means a
concern denned by section 2 [3]  of the
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, 13 CFR
Part  121, and regulations of the Small
Business Administration promulgated
«
     )  For purposes of paragraph  7(g)
     >f the Small Business Act, "necessary
and adequate" refers to additions, alter-
ations, or methods of operation In the
absence of which a small business  con-
cern could not comply with one or more
applicable standards. This can be deter-
mined with reference  to  design specifi-
cations   provided   by   manufactures,
suppliers, or consulting engineers; includ-
ing, without limitation, additions, alter-
ations, or methods  of  operation the de-
sign specifications of which will provide
a measure of treatment or abatement of
pollution in excess of that required by
an applicable standard.
   (c)  "Applicable Standard"  means any
requirement, not subject to an exception
under § 21.6 of this, part,  relating to the
quality of water containing or potentially
containing pollutants. If such require-
ment Is imposed by:
   (1)  The Act;
   (2)  EPA   regulations   promulgated
thereunder;
   (3)  Regulations by any other Federal
Agency promulgated thereunder;
   (4)  Any State standard or require-
ment  as" applicable  under section 510 of
the Act;
   (5)  Any requirements  necessary  to
comply  with an areawide management
plan  approved  pursuant  to  section
208(b) of the Act;
   (6)  Any requirements  necessary  to
   iply  with a facilities plan developed
    er section 201 of the Act (see 35  CFR
   frpart E) ;
  (7) Any  State  regulations  or laws
controlling  the disposal of aqueous pol-
lutants that may affect groundwater.
  (d) "Regional Administrator"  means
the Regional Administrator of EPA  for
the region Including the State In which
the facility or method of operation is lo-
cated, or his deslgnee.
  (e) "Act" means  the Federal  Water
Pollution Control  Act, 33  U.S.C. 1151,
et. seq.
  (f) "Pollutant" means dredged spoil,
solid waste, Incinerator residue, sewage,
garbage,   sewage   sludge,   munitions,
chemical wastes,  biological materials,
radioactive  materials,  heat,' wrecked
or  discarded  equipment,  rock,   sand,
cellar dirt and  Industrial,  municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into
water.  For the purposes of  this sec-
tion, the  term  also  means  sewage
from vessels within the meaning of sec-
tion 312 of the Act.
  (g) "Permit" means any permit issued
by either EPA or a State under the au-
thority of section 402  of the Act;  or by
the Corps of Engineers under section 404
of the Act.
  (h) "State" means  a State,  the Dis-
trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto  Rico,  the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the  Trust Terri-
tory of the Pacific Islands.  [Comment:
As the SBA does not extend its programs
to the  Canal Zone, the listing  of  the
Canal Zone as a State for  the purposes
of meeting  a requirement  imposed by
sections 311 or 312 of the Act is not effec-
tive in this regulation.]
  (1) "Statement" means a written ap-
proval by EPA, or if appropriate, a State,
of the application.
  (j) "Facility"  means  any  building,
structure, installation  or vessel, or por-
tion thereof.
  (k) "Construction"  means the  erec-
tion, building, acquisition, alteration, re-
modeling, modification, Improvement, or
extension of any facility; provided that
It does  not mean preparation or under-
taking of: Plans to determine feasibility;
engineering,  architectural,  legal, fiscal,
or  economic  Investigations or studies;
surveys, designs, plans, writings, draw-
Ings, specifications or procedures.
  [Comment: This provision would not later
preclude  SBA  financial assistance  being
utilized for any planning or design effort
conducted  previous to construction.]

  (1)  The term "additions and altera-
tions" means the act of undertaking con-
struction of any facility.
  (m)  The term "methods of operation"
means  the installation, emplacement, or
Introduction   of   materials,   Including
those involved in construction, to achieve
a process  or procedure to  control:  Sur-
face  water  pollution  from  non-point
sources—that  is,  agricultural, silvicul-
tural,  mining,  construction;  ground or
surface water pollution from well, sub-
surface, or surface disposal operations;
activities  resulting in salt  water intru-
sion; or changes in the movement, flow,
or  circulation  of  navigable  or ground
waters.
  (n)  The term "vessel"  means  every
description of watercraft or other  arti-
ficial  contrivance used, or capable of
being used, as a means of transportation
on  the navigable  waters of the United
States  other  than  a vessel owned or
operated by the United States or a State
or  a political subdivision  thereof,  or a
foreign nation; and is used for com-
mercial purposes  by  a small business
concern.
  (o)  "EPA" means the Environmental
Protection Agency.
  (p)  "SBA" means the Small Business
Administration.
  (q)  "Areawide  agency"  means   an
area wide management agency designated
under section 208(c) (1) of the Act.

§ 21.3   Submission of applications.

  (a)  Applications for the statement de-
scribed in § 21.5 of this part shall be
made to the EPA Regional Office for the
region  covering the State in which the
additions,  alterations, or  methods  of
operation covered by the application are
located. A listing of EPA Regional Offices,
with their mailing addresses, and setting
forjbh the States within each region is as
follows:
                                       Region
                                                                 Address
                                                                                                     State
                                    I		 Regional Administrator, Region I, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, John F. Kennedy Federal BJdg., Room
                                                 2303; Boston, Mass. 02203.
                                    II	 Regional Administrator, Region II, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 908, New York,
                                                 N.Y. 10007.
                                    Ill		Regional Administrator, Region III, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, Curtis Bldg., Sixth and Walnut Sts.,
                                                 Philadelphia, Pa. 19106.
                                    IV	Regional Administrator, Region IV, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, 1421 Peachtree St., NE., Atlanta, Oa.
                                                 30309.
                                    V		Regional Administrator. Region V, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, 1 North Wackcr Dr., Chicago, 111. 60606.
                                    VI...	 Regional Administrator, Region VI, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, 1600 Patterson St., suite 1100, Dallas,
                                                 Tei. 75201.
                                    VH	 Regional Administrator, Region VII, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, 1735 Baltimore Ave., Kansas City, Mo.
                                                 64108.
                                    VIII	 Regional Administrator, Region  VIII, Environmental
                                                 Protection Agency, 1860 Lincoln St., suite 900, Denver,
                                                 Colo. 80203.
                                    IX	 Regional Administrator, Region IX, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, 100 California St., San Francisco, Calif.
                                                 94111.
                                    X	  	 Regional Administrator, Region X, Environmental Pro-
                                                 tection Agency, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Wash. 98101.
                                                      Connecticut,  Maine, Massachusetts,
                                                      New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,
                                                        Vermont.
                                                      New Jersey, New York, Virgin Islands,
                                                        Puerto Rico.

                                                      Delaware, District of Columbia, Mary-
                                                        land Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wes>t
                                                        Virginia.
                                                      Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
                                                        Mississippi,  North Carolina, South
                                                        Carolina, Tennessee.
                                                      Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
                                                        Ohio, Wisconsin.
                                                      Arkansas, Louisiana,  New Mexico,
                                                        Oklahoma, Texas.

                                                      Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska.
                                                      Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
                                                        South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming.

                                                      Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada,
                                                        Guam, American  Samoa,  Trust
                                                        Territory of the Pacific Islands.
                                                      Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO.  160—FRIDAY, AUGUST 16,  1974
-------
29694
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (b) An application described in para-
graph (1) of S 2l.3
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        29695
§ 21.5  Issuance of statements.
  (a) Upon application by a small busi-
ness concern pursuant to 5 21.3 the Re-
gional Administrator  will, if  he finds
that the additions, alterations, or meth-
ods of operation covered by the applica-
tion are adequate and necessary to com-
ply with an applicable standard, issue
a written statement to the applicant to
that effect,  within 45 working days fol-
lowing  receipt  of the  application, or
within 45  working  days  following re-
ceipt of all Information required to be
submitted pursuant to  § 21.3 (c), which-
ever is later. Such a written statement
shall be classified as a full approval. If
an  application  is deficient  in any re-
spect, with  regard to  the specifications
for submission listed in § 21.3(c), the Re-
gional Administrator   shall promptly,
but in no event later than  30 working
days following receipt of the application,
notify the applicant of such deficiency.
  (b) (1) If an application contains pro-
posed alterations,  additions,  or methods
of operation that  are adequate and nec-
essary to  comply with an  applicable
standard  but  also  contains  proposed
alterations,  additions,  or  methods of
operation that are not necessary to com-
ply with an applicable standard, the Re-
gional Administrator shall conditionally
approve the application within the time
limit specified  in subsection  (a),  and
shall also Identify in the approval those
alterations,  additions,  or  methods of
operation that  he determines are not
necessary.
  (2) Conditional  approvals   as  con-
tained In a statement  will  satisfy the
requirements for  approval by  EPA for
those alterations,  additions,  or methods
of operation determined to be necessary
and  adequate.  Such  conditional  ap-
provals may be submitted to  SBA In sat-
isfaction of the requirements of section
7(g) (2) (B)  of the Small  Business  Act.
  (3) Conditional approvals  will  not
satisfy the requirements for approval by
EPA for those alterations, additions, or
methods of operation included in the ap-
plication that are determined not to be
necessary. Unnecessary alterations, addi-
tions, or methods  of operation are those
which are extraneous to the achievement
of an applicable standard.
  (4) Conditional'approvals may be ap-
pealed to the Deputy Administrator by
an applicant in accordance with the pro-
cedures identified  in § 21.8.
  (c) If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the additions, alterations,
or methods of operation covered by an
application are not necessary and ade-
quate to  comply with  an  applicable
standard, he shall disapprove the appli-
cation and shall so advise the applicant of
such determination within the time limit
specified  In subsection (a), and shall
state in  writing  the  reasons  for  his
determination.
   (d)  Any  application shall  be disap-
proved  if  the  Regional  Administrator
determines that the proposed  addition,
alteration, or method of operation would
result in the violation of  any other re-
quirement of this Act, or of any other
Federal or  State law or regulation with
respect to the protection of the environ-
ment.
  (e) An. applicant  need not  demon-
strate  that Its facility or  method of
operation will meet all  applicable  re-
quirements  established under the  Act.
The applicant  need only demonstrate
that the additions, alterations, or meth-
ods of operation for which financial as-
sistance  is being requested will  comply
with  one  or  more  of the  applicable
standards.
  [Comment:  As an example, a small busi-
ness has two  discharge  pipes—one  for
process water,  the other for cooling water.
rhe application  for loan assistance Is to
control pollution from the process  water
discharge. The applicant need  not discuss
any control measures  being Introduced to
abate pollution from the cooling water If no
loan assistance Is being requested for that
discharge.]

  (f) An application should  not  include
major  alternative  designs significantly
differing In scope, concept, or capability.
It is expected that the applicant at the
time of submission will have selected the
most appropriate  or  suitable design for
the addition, alteration, or method of
operation.
  (g) EPA will not provide assistance In
the form of engineering,  design, plan-
ning or  other technical services to any
applicant In the  preparation  of  his
application.

§ 21.6   Exclusions.

  (a)  Statements shall not be Issued for
applications in the following areas:
  (1) Local  requirements. Applications
for statements for  additions, alterations,
or  methods   of  operation  that result
from requirements imposed  by local or
regional  authorities, except for areawlde
management  agencies designated  and
approved under section 208  of the Act,
shall not be approved; except for those
requirements  resulting from the appli-
cation  of  pretreatment  requirements
under section 307(b)  of the Act; or those
resulting from an approved project for
facilities plans, and developed under sec-
tion 201 of the Act. (See 35 CFR Sub-
part E.)
  (2)  Cost  recovery and  user  charges.
Applications for statements  Involving  a
request for financial assistance in meet-
ing revenue and service charges imposed
upon a small business by a municipality
conforming to  regulations governing  a
user charge or capital cost system under
section 204(b) (2) of the Act  (see 35 CFR
925-11 and 925-12) shall not be approved.
  (3)  New  facility sewer construction.
Applications  for   statements involving
projects  that involve the construction of
a lateral, collection, or interceptor sewer,
at a facility that was not in existence on
October  18, 1972, shall not be approved.
Applications  for  additions,  alterations,
or  methods of operation for  new facili-
ties that do not involve sewer construc-
tion are not affected by this preclusion.
  (4)  Other non-water related pollution
abatement   additions,  alterations, or
methods of operation which are not In-
tegral to meeting the requirements of
the Act,  although they may be achieving
the requirements of another Federal or
State law or regulation.
  [Comment: An example would be whero
stack emission  controls  were  required on.
equipment that operated the water pollu-
tion control  facility. This emission control
equipment as an Integral part of the water
pollution control system would be approv-
able. However, emission  control equipment
for  a general purpose Incinerator that only
incidentally  burned sewage sludge would
not be approvable.]

  (5) Privately owned treatment facility
service  or user costs.  Applications  for
statements involving financial assistance
In meeting user cost or fee schedules re-
lated to participating in a  privately
owned treatment  facility not under the
ownership or  control  of the  applicant
shall not be approved.
  (6) Operation   and   maintenance
charges.  Applications for  statements
containing  a request for financial  as-
sistance in  meeting the operations and
maintenance costs of  operating the ap-
plicant's additions, alterations, or meth-
ods of operation shall not be approved
for any  elements  relating to such areas
of cost.
   (7)  Evidence of financial  responsi-
bility. Applications for statements con-
taining a request for financial assistance
in meeting any requirements relating to
evidence of financial  responsibility  as
provided In section 311 (p)  of the  Act
shall not be approved.

§ 21.7   Reserved.
  [Comment: Applications  for a statement
resulting from a requirement to control pol-
lution from  non-point sources as Identified
In  section 304 (e) (2) (A-P)  of  the  Act  and
described In 5 21.2 (m)  of this part will not
presently be Issued  a statement under 5 21.5
of this part. There  la no requirement under
the current Act  that the Federal government
control pollution from such sources, and the
nature and scope of State or areawlde man-
agement agency proposals or programs to
control such  sources cannot be determined
at this time. As State plans for control of
non-point  sources  being  prepared  under
5 303 (e) of the Act,  and areawlde plans being
prepared under  i 208 of the Act, will not be
completed for several years, this section la
being reserved pending a future determina-
tion on the eligibility of applications relat-
ing to non-point sources to receive a state-
ment under this part.]

§ 21.8   Resubmission of application.
   (a)  A small business  concern whose
application  Is disapproved may  submit
an amended or corrected application to
the Regional Administrator at any time.
The applicant shall provide the date of
any previous application.

§ 21.9   Appeals.
   (a)  An applicant aggrieved by a de-
termination of a Regional Administrator
under § 21.5 may appeal In writing to
the Deputy  Administrator of  the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, within 30
days of the date of  the  determination
from which an appeal is taken; provided
that the Deputy Administrator may, on
good cause shown, accept an appeal at a
later time.
   (b) The applicant In requesting such
an appeal  shall submit  to  the Deputy
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO.  160—FRIDAY,  AUGUST 16, 1974
-------
29696
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
Administrator a  copy of the complete
application as reviewed by the Regional
Administrator.
  (c) The applicant should also provide
information as to why it believes the de-
termination made by the Regional Ad-
ministrator  to be in  error.
  (d) The Deputy Administrator shall
act upon such appeal within 60 days of
receipt of any complete application for a
review of the determination.
§21.10  Utilization of the statement.
  (a) Statements issued by the Regional
Administrator will be mailed to the small
business applicant and to  the Small
Business Administration. It is  the re-
sponsibility of the applicant to  also for-
ward the statement to SBA as part of
the application for a loan.
  (b) Any statement or determination
issued under ! 21.5 shall not be altered,
modified, changed, or destroyed by any
applicant in the course of providing such
statement to SBA. To do so can result in
the revocation of any approval contained
in the statement  and subject the appli-
cant  to the  penalties provided in 18
U.S.C. 1001.
  (c) If an  application for which  a
statement is Issued under § 21.5 is  sub-
stantlvely changed  in scope,  concept,
design, or capability prior to the approval
by  SBA  of  the  financial assistance
requested, the statement as issued shall
be revoked. The applicant must resubmit
a revised application under §  21.3 and
a new review must be conducted. Failure
to meet the requirements of this  sub-
paragraph could  subject the applicant
to the  penalties  specified  in 18 U.S.C.
1001  and 18  U.S.C. 286. A substantive
change is one which materially affects
the  performance  or capability of the
proposed addition, alteration, or method
of operation.
  (d) An agency, Regional Administra-
tor,  or  State issuing a statement under
S 21.5 shall retain a complete copy of the
application  for a period of five  years
after the date of issuance of the state-
ment. The  application  shall be made
available upon request for inspection or
use at  any  time  by any agency of the
Federal Government.
  (e) No statement  as issued shall be
construed   as modifying,  suspending,
abrogating, or changing the terms, con-
ditions, limitations, or schedules of com-
pliance  imposed  by  any applicable
standard, permit, or other requirement
authorized under this Act. The pendency
of an application for a statement or for
financial assistance as under this Section
shall not be construed as a waiver or sus-
pension of the compliance requirements
of any  applicable standard or permit.
   (f) No statement  as  issued  and re-
viewed shall  be  construed as  a waiver
to the  applicants fulfilling the require-
ments of any State or local law, statute,
ordinance,  or code (including building,
health, orxzoning codes).
   (g) An amended application need not
be submitted if the facility, property, or
operation  for which the statement is
issued  is sold, leased, rented, or trans-
ferred by the applicant to another party
prior to approval by SBA of the financial
assistance, provided that there Is or will
be no substantive change in the scope,
concept, design, capability, or conduct
of the facility or operation.
  [Comment: However, eligibility for finan-
cial assistance would be reexamlned by SBA
with regard to any such sale, lease, rental or
transfer.]

  (h) The Regional Administrator may
include in any statement a date of ex-
piration, after which  date the approval
by the Regional Administrator contained
in the  statement shall no longer apply.
The date of expiration shall not become
effective if the applicant has submitted
the statement to the  SBA, prior to the
date of expiration, as part of the appli-
cation  for financial assistance.
§21.11  Public participation.
  (a) Applications shall  not generally
be subject to public notice, public com-
ment,  or pubUc  hearings. Applications
during the period of review as stated in
§ 21.5,  or during the period of appeal as
provided in § 21.8, shall be available for
public  inspection. Approved applications
as provided in |21.10(d) shall be avail-
able for public inspection at all  times
during the five year period.
  (b) The Regional Administrator, if he
believes that the  addition, alteration, or
method of operation may adversely and
significantly affect an interest of  the
public,  shall provide for a public notice
and/or public hearing on the applica-
tion. The public  notice  and/or public
hearing shall be conducted in accordance
with the procedures specified for a per-
mit under 40 CFR 125.32 and  40 CFR
125.34(b).
   (c)  Where the applicant is  able  to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of  the
Regional Administrator that disclosure
of certain information or parts thereof
as-provided in § 21.3 (c) <5)  would result
in the divulging of methods or processes
entitled to  protection as trade secrets,
the Regional Administrator shall treat
the  information  or the particular part
as  confidential in accordance with  the
purposes of section 1905 of Title 18 of
the  United  States Code and not release
it to any unauthorized person. Provided,
however, That if access to such informa-
tion is  subsequently requested  by any
person, there will be compliance with the
procedures specified in 40 CFR 2. Such
information may be  disclosed to other
officers, employees, or authorized repre-
sentatives of the United  States  con-
cerned with carrying out the Act or when
relevant  in  any  proceeding  under  the
Act.

§21.12  Slate issued statements.
   (a)  Any State after the effective date
of these regulations may submit to the
Regional Administrator for his approval
an application to conduct a program for
 issuing statements under this section.
   (1)  A State submission shall specify
the organizational, legal, financial, and
 administrative resources and procedures
 that it believes will enable it to conduct
 the program.
  (2) The State  program  shall  con-
stitute an equivalent effort  to that  re-
quired of EPA under this section.
  (3) The State organization responsible
for conducting the program should be
the State water pollution control agency,
as defined in section 502 of the Act.
  (4) The State submission shall propose
a procedure  for adjudicating applicant
appeals as provided under § 21.9.
  (5) The State submission shall iden-
tify any existing or potential conflicts of
interest on the part of any personnel
who will or may review or approve  ap-
plications.
   (i) A  conflict of interest shall exist
where the reviewing official is the spouse
of or dependent (as denned in the Tax
Code, 26 U.S.C. 152)  of an owner, part-
ner, or principal officer of the small busi-
ness, or where he has or  is receiving
from the small business concern appli-
cant 10 percent of gross personal income
for a calendar year, except  that it shall
mean 50 percent gross  personal income
for  a calendar year if the recipient is
over 60  years of  age and  is receiving
such portion  pursuant to retirement,
pension, or similar arrangements.
   (ii) If the State is unable to provide
alternative parties to review or approve
any application subject to conflict of in-
terest, the Regional Administrator shall
review and approve the application.
   (b) The Regional Administrator, with-
in 60 days after such application, shall
approve any State program that con-
forms to the requirements  of this Sec-
tion. Any such approval shall be after
sufficient notice has been provided to the
Regional Director  of SBA.
   (c) If the Regional Administrator dis-
approves the application, he shall notify
the State, in writing, of any deficiency in
its application. A State may  resubmit
an  amended application at any  later
time.
   (d) Upon approval of a State submis-
sion, EPA will suspend  all review of ap-
plications  and issuance of statements
for small businesses in that State, pend-
ing  transferral. Provided, however,  that
in the event of a State conflict of interest
as identified in § 21.12(a) (4) supra, EPA
shall review the application and issue the
statement.
   (e) Any applications shall, if received
by an EPA Regional Office, be forwarded
promptly to  the  appropriate State for
action pursuant to section 7(g) (2) of the
Small Business Act and these regula-
tions.
   (f) (1) EPA will  generally not review or
approve individual statements issued by
a State. However,  SBA, upon receipt and
review  of a  State  approved statement
may request the Regional Administrator
of EPA to  review  the statement.  The
Regional Administrator, upon  such re-
quest can further approve or disapprove
the State issued  statement,  in accord-
ance with the requirements of 5 21.5 of
 this part.
   (2)  The  Regional Administrator will
periodically  review State program  per-
formance. In the event  of State program
deficiencies the Regional Administrator
will notify UIP State of such deficiencies.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 160—FRIDAY, AUGUST  16, 1974
-------
  (3) During that period that any State's
program la classified as deficient, state-
ments  issued by a State shall also be
sent to the Regional Administrator for
review. The Regional Administrator shall
notify the  State, the applicant, and the
SBA of any determination subsequently
made, In accordance with { 21.5 of this
part, on any such statement.
     RULES AND  REGULATIONS

  (1) If within 60 days after notice of
such deficiencies has been provided, the
State has  not  taken corrective efforts,
and If the deficiencies significantly affect
the conduct of the program, the Regional
Administrator, after sufficient notice has
been provided to the Regional Director
of SBA, shall withdraw the approval of
the State program.
                               29Gf7

  (ii) Any State whose program is with-
drawn and whose deficiencies have been
corrected may later reapply as provided
In $2l.l2(a).
  (g) Funds appropriated under section
106 of the Act may be utilized by a State
agency authorized to receive such funds
in conducting this program.
  IFR Doc.74-18902 Piled 8-16-74,8:45 am]
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 160—FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 1974
-------
        VI.  2
        THURSDAY,  MARCH  6,  1975

        WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Volume 40 •  Number 45

        Pages 10433-10654

        PART  I
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   Rules

                   Freedom  of Information	10460
   Title 40—Protection of Environment

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
        SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL
             [FRL 336-C]

    PART 2—PUBLIC INFORMATION
  Interim regulations are hereby pro-
mulgated which  amend  Chapter I  of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions by revising Part 2 thereof to comply
with  the requirements  of  the  recent
amendments  (Pub. L. 93-502, Novem-
ber 21, 1974)  to 5 U.S.C.  552, commonly
called the Freedom of Information Act.
These regulations establish procedures to
be followed by the public in making re-
quests for records and by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) in han-
dling those requests.
  The regulations establish a new sub-
 part A containing the general rules anc
 procedures applicable to all requests for
 records, A separate subpart B will shortly
 be  issued  under proposed rulemak.  •
 procedures; it will propose special rule.
 and procedures for the handling of re-
 quests for  information  pertaining to
 businesses which may be entitled to con-
 fidential treatment for reasons of trade
 secrecy  or commercial  or  financial
 confidentiality.
  For the most part, subpart A contains
 self-explanatory  statements of general
 EPA policy concerning the availability of
 Information, procedures for making re-
 quests for  records, a description of EPA
 procedures for responding  to requests
 and  issuing initial determinations,  the
method for filing an administrative ap-
peal  from  an  initial  determination
-------
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                         10461
denying a request, the EPA appeal deci-
sion procedure,  and provisions concern-
ing payment for search and duplication
costs Involved In responding to request*.
  The  recent amendments  to 5  U.3.C.
552 provide that within 10 working days
from an agency's receipt of a request for
records, an initial determination  in  re-
sponse to the request shall be issued. The
regulation  provides  in  52.110  that this
10-dav  period will commence on the date
that the request is received by a  Head-
quarters or regional Freedom of  Infor-
mation  Office. Requests  addressed to such
an  office will be received by that office
promptly after the EPA mailroom phys-
ically receives a request. Requests ad-
dressed to other offices may experience
delays due to the need  for rerouting the
request; requestors are therefore urged
to submit their  requests to the Freedom
of Information  Offices  at the addresses
stated in the regulation.
  The regulation also  provides that in
certain cases  the running of the 10-day
period will be suspended while additional
information or  payment  assurances are
obtained from the  requestor. EPA does
not have any intention  of using the time
suspension  procedures  as  a means to
avoid or delay response to a request, but
does not believe that the  10-dav  period
should  be  allowed  to  lapse while EPA
waits for the requestor to furnish reason-
able identification  of requested records
or to make arrangements for payment of
costs which  will  be incurred in processing
the request.
  Section 1 120  Payment was published
in the FEDERAL REGISTER on January  24,
1975, as proposed rulemaking. All  public
comments were  considered.
  It is  EPA's  intention to repromulgate
these regulations after a  period  of ex-
perience and  after the receipt of com-
ments from  interested parties. Interested
parties  are encouraged to submit written
comments, views, or data  concerning the
regulations  promulgated  hereby to the
Director, Management and Organization
Division, PM-213,  US  Environmental
Protection   Aponcv,  Washington,  D.C.,
20460. All such  submissions  received on
or brfore  Mav 20, 1975, will be consid-
ered prior to the promulgation of a final
version  of these  regulations Copies of all
comments will be available for vmblic in-
spection in  Room 206.  Waterside  Mall,
West Tower, 401 M Street SW , Wash-
ington,  D C  , between the  hours of 8 a.m.
and  4:30 p m. on Government workdays.
  The necessity that  these regulations
be known  to the public and  that the
Agency's  procedures  conform  to  the
amendments to  5 U S C.  552 by Febru-
ary 19,  1975, the effective date of those
amendments,  leads the Agency to con-
clude that it -would be impracticable and
contrary to the public  interest to  allow
a period for receipt of comments from
the public prior  to promulgation of these
regulations  in final form, or to postpone
their effective date  until  30 days after
their promulgation.
  Effective  date. These regulations are
effective on the  date of signature.
  It is therefore proposed to amend part
2 of Chapter I of Title  40, Code of Fed-
eral Regulations, In the manner set forth
below.

  Dated February 21,1875.
                 RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
                      Administrator.

  Part 2 of Chapter I of Title 40 Is re-
vised to read as follows:
  Subpart A—Interim Regulation* Concerning
          Request* for Information
Sec.
2.100  Definitions.
2.101  Policy on disclosure of EPA records.
2.102  (Reserved)
2 103  Partial disclosure of records.
2 104  Request for existing records.
2.106  Creation of new records.
2.106  [Reserved]
2.107  Where  requests for agency records
        shall bo filed.
2.108  Form of request.
2.109  Requests which do not reasonably de-
        scribe records sought.
2.110  Initial  action upon receipt of a re-
        quest.
2.111  Action by office responsible for main-
        taining requested  records.
2112  Time allowed for Issuance of initial
        determination.
2 113  Initial denials of requests.
2 114  Appeals from initial denials; manner
        of making.
2115  Appeal  determinations;  by  whom
        made.
2116  Contents  of  determination denying
        appeal.
2117  Time allowed for issuance of appeal
        determination
2118  Exemption categories
2 119  Discretionary release of exempt docu-
        ments
2 120  Payment.
2 121  Preparation of annual report
          Subpart B—[Reserved!
  AUTHORITY;  5 USC.  562,  5  U.SC  553.

§2.100  Definitions.
  For the purposes of this part:
  (a)  "EPA" means the United  States
Environmental Protection Agency.
  (b) "Request" means a request for the
release  of records under 5  U.S.C. 552.
  (c) "Requestor" means any person who
has submitted  a request to  EPA.

§2.101  Policy on  disclosure  of EPA
     records.

  (a) EPA will make the fullest possible
disclosure of records to  the public, con-
sistent with the rights of  individuals to
privacy, the  rights of persons in trade
secrets and other information entitled to
confidential treatment, and the need for
EPA to promote frank internal policy de-
liberations and to pursue its  official ac-
tivities  without undue disruption.
  (b) All  EPA records shall be available
to the public unless  they are specifically
exempt under this part.
  'c)  All  nonexempt  records  of EPA
shall be made available for public  dis-
closure   upon  request   regardless  of
whether any  Justification  or need for
such records has been shown.

§2.102  [Reserved]

§ 2.103   Parliiil disclosure of records.

  If a record  contains  both  disclosable
and nondisclosable information, the non-
disclosable information  will  be  deleted
and the disclosable  information will be
disclosed unless the disclosable portions
cannot be reasonably  segregated from
the other portions in a manner which
will allow meaningful information to be
disclosed.
§ 2.104  Request for existing records.
   (a) Any written request to EPA for ex-
isting  records shall be deemed  to be  a
request for records pursuant to the Free-
dom of  Information Act,  5 U.S.C. 552,
whether or not that statute Is mentioned
in the request, and shall be governed by
the provisions of this Part.
   (b)  All existing EPA records are sub-
ject to routine destruction according to
standard record retention schedules.
   (c)  Any written request to  EPA for
existing records prepared  by  EPA  for
routine  public  distribution,  e.g.,  pam-
phlets, copies of speeches, press releases,
and  educational  materials,  shall   be
honored. No individual  determination
under § 2.111 is necessary in such cases,
since  preparation  of  the  records  for
routine public  distribution  itself consti-
tutes a  determination that the records
are available to the public. Copies shall
be furnished with reasonable promptness
in response to the request.
§ 2.105  Creation of new records.
   The Freedom of Information Act  and
the provisions of  this part apply only
to existing records; they do not require
the creation of new records.
§2.106   rnesrrvrd]
§ 2.107  Where requests for agenei  rec-
     ords shall he filed.
   A request for records may be filed with
the EPA Freedom of Information Officer,
A-101, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C.  20460.  Should the requestor have
reason to believe that the records sought
may be  located in EPA regional offices,
he should transmit his request to the ap-
propriate regional  Freedom of Informa-
tion Office indicated below:
   (a)  Region  I.  (Massachusetts, Con-
necticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont) :
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Freedom of Information Officer
Room 2303
John P, Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Mass. 02203

   (b)  Region II. (New Jersey, New Yoiis,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Freedom of Information Officer
Room 1005
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10007

   (c)  Region III.  (Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania,  Virginia, West  Virginia,
District of Columbia):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Freedom of Information Officer
Curtis Building
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106

   (d)  Region  IV.   (Alabama,  Florida,
Georgia,  Kentucky,  Mississippi,  North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Freedom of Information Officer
Suite 604
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, QA 30309
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  40, NO. 45—THURSDAY, MARCH 6,  1975
-------
 10462
      RUIES AND REGULATIONS
   re)  Region V. (Illinois, Indiana, Mich-
 igan. Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin):
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Freedom of Information Officer
 230 Dearborn Street
 Chicago, IL 60G04

   (f>  Ret/ion VI.  (Arkansas,  Louisiana,
 Nu\v Mexico. Oklahoma, Texas) :
 U 8  Environmental Protection Agency
 Freedom of Information Officer
 Suite 1100
 1600 Patterson Street
 Dallas, TX 75201

   fg)  Region VII.  (Iowa.  Kansas, Mis-
 souri, Nebraska):
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Freedom ot Information Officer
 1735 Baltimore Avenue
 Kansas City, MO 64108

   (h)  Region VIII. (Colorado, Montana,
 North  Dakota, South  Dakota,  Utah,
 Wyoming):
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Freedom of Information Officer
 Suite 900
 1860 Lincoln Street
 Denver, CO 80203

  (i)  Region IX.  (Arizona,  California,
Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam,
Trust Territories of Pacific Islands, Wake
Island):
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Freedom of Information Officer
100  California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

  (j)  Region X. (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington):
U.S. Er.vlronmental Protection Agency
Freedom ot Information Officer
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101

§ 2.108  Form of request.

  A request for EPA records shall be In
writing, shall  reasonably  describe  the
records sought in a way that will permit
their identification and location by EPA,
but otherwise need not be in any partic-
ular form. Where the requestor  antici-
pates that search and duplication fees in-
volved in  the request might be substan-
tial, he may  wish to consider a prepay-
ment, or include a commitment to pay all
fees that may be involved  or all fees up
to a stated limit (see § 2.120). Placing the
term 'Freedom of Information Act Re-
quest" on the envelope and  letter may
well result in a speedier response.

 § 2.109  Hcqucsts  which do not reason-
    ably describe records sought.

  (a) If the description of the records
sought in the request is not a reasonable
description sufficient to allow EPA  to
identify and locate the requested records,
EPA will notify the requestor  (by  tele-
phone  when  practicable)  that  the re-
quest cannot be further processed until
additional'information is furnished.
  (b) EPA will make every reasonable
effort to assist in the identification and
description of records sought, and to as-
sist the requestor in formulating his re-
quest.  If a request  is described in  gen-
eral terms (e.g., all  records having to do
with  a certain area), the EPA office
should attempt to communicate with the
requestor (by telephone when  practica-
ble) with a view toward lessening both
the administrative burden of processing
a broad request and minimizing the fees
payable by the requestor. Such attempts
will not be used as a means to discourage
requests, but rather as a means to help
Identify with more specificity the records
actually sought.
§2.110  Trillin]  action upon receipt of .1
    request.
  (a) Requests received by the Freedom
of Information Offices. Each request re-
ceived by a Freedom of Information Of-
fice, whether at EPA Headquarters or at
an  EPA region,  shall be   promptly
stamped  with the date of receipt by that
office  and assigned a Request Identifica-
tion Number. The Freedom of  Informa-
tion Office shall  promptly forward the
request to the EPA offlce(s)  believed to
be  responsible for maintaining the re-
quested records, retaining a copy of the
request. If a  request  is received by  a
Freedom of Information Office at an EPA
region and  the  requested  records  (or
some  of  them)  are  not maintained by
that EPA region, the  regional  Freedom
of  Information  Office  shall  promptly
furnish  a copy of  the  request to the
Headquarters  Freedom of Information
Office.
  (b)  Requests received by EPA offices
other than Freedom of Information Of-
fices.  If any  request is received by any
EPA office other than  a Freedom of In-
formation Office, a copy of the request
shall  be  forwarded immediately to the
Headquarters  Freedom of Information
Office (or, if  the receiving office is part
of an EPA region, to the regional Free-
dom of Information Office).
  (c)  Method  of forwarding  requests.
Bequests shall be forwarded under para-
graphs (a) and  (b) of  this section by
electronic means (facsimile  machine,
telephone, etc.).
§ 2.111   Action by office responsible for
    maintaining requested records.
  (a)  Whenever an  EPA office becomes
aware that  it has  been assigned the
responsibility  of responding  to a re-
ouest, or  whenever  such an  office be-
comes aware that EPA has received  a
request  for  records  which  that  office
maintains or for which that office has
responsibility, the office shall:
  (1)  Locate the records  as  promptly
as possible, or  determine that the rec-
ords are not known to exist, or that they
are located at another EPA office, or that
they are held by another Federal agency
and not by EPA;
  (2)  Determine which of  the records
(or portions of records)  held by the of-
fice may  not legally  be released, and
why;
  (3)  Determine whether disclosure will
be made  of requested records which are
exempt from mandatory disclosure but
which are not  required by  law or this
part to be withheld (see §82.118-2.119),
and the reasons for withholding any such
records;
  (4)  Issue   an  initial determination
within the allowed period (see §2.112),
specifying which requested records will
be withheld and which will be released
(determinations  to  withhold  requested
records shall comply with § 2.113).
  (b)  If any  requested records located
under paragraph (a) of this section con-
tain business Information  which is cov-
ered by a business confidentiality claim
or is  the type of Information for  which
business sometimes requests  confiden-
tial treatment, or is or may be required
by law to be held in confidence for rea-
sons of business confidentiality, the EPA
office in possession of such records shall
comply with applicable provisions of sub-
part B of this Part.
  (c)  Whenever an  EPA office  learns
that some or all of the requested records
are not  in that office's possession but
are or may be h. the possession of some
other EPA office or  some other Federal
agency, that office shall immediately so
inform the  Headquarters or regional
Freedom of Information Office which is
monitoring the request.
  (d)  If at any time it appears  to  an
EPA office that performance  of further
search work would cause fees to  be in-
curred in excess of those which the re-
questor has paid or agreed to pay (or
$25.00 if no fee has  been  agreed upon),
action shall be taken to obtain or assure
payment  (see §2.120), to assist In the
reformulation   of   the   request  (see
§ 2.109), or both.
§ 2.112  Time allowed for issuance  of
    initial determination.
  (a)   Except  as otherwise provided in
this  section,  not later than  the  tenth
working day after the  date of receipt by
a Freedom of  Information Office of a
request for records, the EPA office re-
sponsible for responding to the request
shall issue a written determination to the
requestor stating which of the requested
records will, and which will not,  be re-
leased, -and the reason for any denial of
a request.  (A written determination  Is
not necessary  if within that 10-day pe-
riod  all requested records are actually
furnished to the requestor.)
  (b)  The period of 10 working days shall
be measured from the date the request
is first received  and logged  in by the
Headquarters or regional Freedom  of In-
formation Office.
  (c)  There shall be excluded from the
period of  10 working days (or any ex-
tension thereof) any time  which elapses
between the time that a requestor is noti-
fied by EPA that his request does not
reasonably identify  the  records  sought
and the time that the requestor furnishes
a reasonable identification (see § 2.109).
  (d)  There shall be excluded from the
period of 10 working days  (or any exten-
sion thereof)  any time which elapses be-
tween the time that a requestor is noti-
fied by EPA that processing his request
will generate chargeable  fees  in  excess
of $25.00 (or any higher dollar limit he
has established  as acceptable), and the
time that the requestor makes suitable
arrangements   for   payment  of   such
charges (see § 2.120).
  (e)  The EPA office taking action under
S2.111, after notifying the appropriate
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  40, NO. 45—THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1975
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        10463
Freedom of Information Office, may ex-
tend the basic 10-day period established
under paragraph (a) of this section by a
period not to exceed 10 additional work-
ing days, by furnishing written notice to
the requestor within  the  basic  10-day
period stating the reasons for such ex-
tension and the date by which the office
expects to be able to issue a determina-
tion. The period may be so extended only
when absolutely necessary, only for the
period required, and  only when  one or
more  of the following  unusual circum-
stances require  the extension:
  (1) There is a need to search for and
collect the requested records from field
facilities  or other establishments  that
are separate from the office processing
the request;
  (2) There is a need  to search for, col-
lect,  and  appropriately examine a vo-
luminous amount of separate and  dis-
tinct  records which are demanded in a
single request;  or
  (3)  There Is  a need for consultation,
which shall be conducted with all prac-
ticable speed, with another agency having
a substantial interest in the determina-
tion of the request or among two or  more
components of EPA.
  (f)   Failure of EPA to issue a deter-
mination  within the  10-day period or
any authorized extension shall constitute
final agency action which authorizes the
requestor to commence an action in an
appropriate Federal district court to ob-
tain the records.
§ 2.113   Initial denials of rrqursl-4.
  (a)  An initial denial of a request may
be issued  only for the following reasons:
  (i) The record requested is not known
to exist;
  (2)  The record is not in EPA's  posses-
sion ;
  (3)  The record has been published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER or is otherwise pub-
lished and available for sale.
  (4)  A statutory provision, provision of
this part, or court order requires that the
information not be disclosed;
  (5)  The record is exempt from man-
datory disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)
and EPA  has decided as a matter of dis-
cretion not to release it;
  '6)  Subpart B of  this  part requires
initial  denial  because a  third  person
must be consulted in connection with a
business confidentiality claim; or
  (7)  The record is believed to exist in
EPA's possession  but  has not yet  been
located (see paragraph  (h)  of this sec-
tion) .
    Each  initial   determination  to
deny a request shall be written, signed,
and dated, and shall contain a reference
to the Bequest Identification Number.
  (e) If the determination to deny a re-
quest was directed to be issued by some
EPA officer or  employee other than the
person signing the determination letter,
that other person's identity and position
shall be stated in the determination let-
ter. If an EPA regulation  (e.g.,  § 2.204)
requires  that an initial denial determi-
nation be issued upon the finding of cer-
tain facts, reference shall be made  to the
regulation and the determination letter
shall state the name of the person who
made the fact finding.
   (f) Each initial determination  which
denies a request in  whole or  part shall
state that the requestor may appeal the
initial denial  by mailing  or personally
delivering  an appeal  in writing to the
address stated in S 2.114 within 30 days
of receipt of the determination or within
30  days  of the date the requestor last
received any records in  response  tr the
request,  whichever date is later
   
-------
10464
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (b) The period of 20  working days
shall be measured from the date an ap-
peal. In accordance with § 2.114. is first
received by the Freedom of Information
Officer at EPA Headquarters, except as
otherwise provided In 5 2.205.
  (c) The Office of  General  Counsel,
after notifying the Freedom of Informa-
tion Officer  at EPA Headquarters, may
extend the  basic 20-day  period  estab-
lished under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion by a period not to exceed 10  addi-
tional working days, by  furnishing writ-
ten notice to the requestor  within the
basic 20-day period stating the reasons
for such extension and the date by which
the office expects to be able to issue a
determination. The  period may  be so
extended only when absolutely necessary,
only for  the period required, and only
when one or more of the following unus-
ual circumstances require the extension:
  (1) There Is a need to search for and
collect the requested  records from field
facilities  or other establishments that are
separate  from the office processing the
request;
  (2) There Is a need to search for, col-
lect, and appropriately examine a volu-
minous amount of separate and distinct
records which are demanded in a single
request; or
  (3) There  Is a need for consultation,
which shall  be conducted  with all prac-
ticable speed, with another agency hav-
ing a substantial interest In the  deter-
mination  of  the  request or among two
or more components of EPA.
  (d) No extension  of the 20-day period
shall be  Issued under subsection  (c) of
this section which would cause the total
of all such extensions and of any exten-
sions Issued under  9 2.112(e)  to exceed
10 working days.
§2,118  Exemption categories.
  (a) 5U.S.C. 552(b) establishes nine ex-
clusive categories of matters which are
exempt from  the mandatory disclosure
requirements of 5 U.SC. 552(a). No  re-
quest under 5 U.S.C. 552 for an existing,
located record in EPA's possession shall
be denied by any EPA office or employee
unless the record contains (or Its dis-
closure would reveal) matters that are—•
  (1) Specifically authorized under cri-
teria established by an  Executive Order
to be kept secret in the interest of na-
tional defense or foreign policy and^are
In  fact properly  classified pursuant  to
such Executive Order;
  (2) Belated solely to the internal per-
sonnel rules and practices of an agency;
  <3) Specifically exempted from dis-
closure by statute;
  (4) Trade secrets and commercial or
financial  information  obtained from a
person and privileged or confidential;
  (5) Interagency or intra-agency mem-
orandums or letters which would not be
available by  law  to a party  other than
an  agency in litigation with the agency;
  (6) Personnel  and medical files and
similar files  the disclosure  of  which
would  constitute  &  clearly unwarranted
Invasion of personal privacy;
  (7) Investigatory  records  compiled
for law enforcement purposes, but only
to the extent that the production of ouch
records would:  (1)  Interfere  with en-
forcement  proceedings;  (11)  deprive a
person of a right to a fair trial or an Im-
partial adjudication; (111) constitute an
unwarranted Invasion  of personal  pri-
vacy; (iv) disclose the Identity of a con-
fidential source and, in the case of a rec-
ord compiled by a criminal law enforce-
ment authority In the course of a crimi-
nal Investigation, or by an agency con-
ducting a lawful national security Intel-
ligence  investigation,  confidential  In-
formation furnished only by the confi-
dential source; (v) disclose Investigative
ijchniques and procedures; or (vl)  en-
danger the life or physical safety of law
enforcement personnel.
  (8) Contained In or related to exami-
nation operating, or condition  reports
prepared by. on behalf of. or for the use
of an agency responsible for the regula-
tion or supervision of  financial  Institu-
tions; or
  (9) Geological and geophysical Infor-
mation  and data, Including maps, con-
cerning wells.
  (b) The  fact that the applicability of
an exemption permits nondisclosure of a
requested record  (or  portion thereof)
does not necessarily  mean that the rec-
ord must or should be withheld. Where
the rights  of  third  parties other than
Federal agencies would not be prejudiced,
disclosure of records In response  to a re-
quest Is  encouraged unless  there is an
important  reason for  nondisclosure.
§ 2.119  Discretionary release of exempt
     documents.
  (a) EPA may, In Its discretion, release
requested records despite the applicabil-
ity  of the  exemptions listed In para-
graphs  (2). (5),  (7).  (8), or  (9)  of
§2.118(a).
  (b) As a matter of policy, EPA will not
release a requested record If EPA deter-
mines  that one  or more of the  exemp-
tions listed In paragraphs (1), (3), (4),
or (6)  of § 2.118(a) apply to the record,
except when ordered to do so by a Fed-
eral court  or In exceptional  circum-
stances under appropriate restrictions
with the approval of the  Office of Gen-
eral Counsel or  a Regional  Counsel
§ 2.120  Payment.
  (a) Fee Schedule. Fees will be  charged
for copies of records which are furnished
to a person under this  part and for time
spent In locating and reproducing them
in accordance with the fee schedule be-
low. No fee will be charged for periods of
less  than one-half hour  spent  In  con-
nection with a search for records or com-
puter programming.
Record search time (per half hour)	$2. 50
In-house computer programming time
  (per half hour)	  4. BO
Reproduction  of   documents   (per
  page)  	20

If the information  requested exists as
a  computer record  and  &  printout or
tape is a means by which that Informa-
tion may be made available, the fee will
be the actual direct cost of the computer
system  time added to any applicable
search.  In-house  programming,  repro-
duction, or contract programming costs.
  (b) Prepayment. In the event pending
requests under this part from the same
requesting party would require the pay-
ment of fees in excess of $25.00, such rec-
ords will  not be searched for or made
available, nor copies or such records fur-
nished unless the requesting party  first
pays, or makes acceptable arrangements
to pay,  the  total amount due;  or If  not
ascertalnable exactly,  the approximate
amount that would become due upon the
completion of EPA's search and/or copy-
Ing activities, as determined by the office
responding to the request. All payments
must be In the form of check or money
order made payable to the U.S. Environ-
mental  Protection Agency and delivered
to the Freedom of Information Officer at
EPA Headquarters or at the appropriate
regional office.  In the event an advance
payment hereunder shall differ from the
amount of the  fees actually due, an  ap-
propriate adjustment will be made at the
time  the  negative determination is is-
sued, the  copies requested are delivered,
or the records are made available.
  (c) Waiver. EPA may reduce or waive
the payment of fees, if such reduction or
waiver would be in the public Interest.
§ 2.121   Preparation of annual report.
  On or before March 1 of each calendar
year, EPA's Freedom of Information Offi-
cer will submit an Agency report cover-
Ing the preceding calendar year to  the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
and President of the Senate for referral
to  the  appropriate committees  of  the
Congress. The report shall include:
   (a) The  number of determinations
made by EPA not to comply with requests
for records  made under section 552(a>
of the Freedom of Information Act, as
amended,  and  the reasons  for each,
determination;
   (b) The number of  appeals made by
persons under subsection  552(a) (6). the
result of such appeals, and the reason for
the action upon each appeal that results
in a denial for Information;
   (c) The name(s) and tltle(s) or posi-
tion (s)  of each  person  responsible  for
the denial of records requested under sec-
tion 552(b)  and the number of Instances
of participation for each;
   (d) The  results of  each  proceeding
conducted pursuant to subsection 552(a)
(4) (f),  Including a report of the disci-
plinary action taken against the officer or
employee who was primarily responsible
for improperly withholding records or an
explanation  of why disciplinary action
was not taken;
   (e) A copy of Agency rules regarding
the Freedom of Information Act;
   (f) A copy of the fee schedule and the
total amount of fees collected for making
records available; and
   (g) Other information  related to ad-
ministering section 552(c).
   [FR Doc.75-6859 Piled 3-6-75; 8:45 am]
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  40, NO. 45—THURSDAY, MARCH 6,  1975
-------
                          MANUAL OF REFERENCES

                  Municipal  Wastewater Treatment Works
                     Construction Grants Program*

                        II.   PROGRAM DIRECTIVES
     To assure national  uniformity in program implementation and to provide
policy direction in integrating the various complex requirements of the
Federal water pollution control program, EPA headquarters periodically
issues policy and operational  guidance documents to the Regional Offices
and others involved in the grants program.   Prior to July, 1976, such
documents were issued as Program Guidance Memoranda (PG's) and dealt with
policy matters, operating guidance, as well as requests for specific in-
formation or reports.

     Commencing in July, 1976, a new system of guidance issuances was
instituted.   The system was designed to establish a clear differentiation
between policy and operational issuances.  The new system was also developed,
in part, to complement the Construction Grants Handbook of Procedures
(February, 1976) by allowing certain guidance issuances to be readily
integrated into that Handbook.

     Briefly, there are three types of guidance issuances under the new
system:

     1.  Program Requirements Memoranda (PRM's), which convey basic
         program policy to which adherance is mandatory for those to whom
         it is directed.

     2.  Transmittal Memoranda (TM's), which dictate specific changes to
         the Grants Handbook.   Two types will be issued:

         a.   Those which establish policy or give procedural guidance
             by means of simply directing changes in the Construction
             Grants Handbook of Procedures.

         b.   Those which direct changes in the Handbook growing out of
             the issuance of PRM's.  (NOTE:  TM's of this nature, since
             they essentially duplicate the information contained in
             PRMs, will  not be incorporated in this Manual.)

     3.  Program Operation Memoranda (POM's), which are used solely to
         request information,  inform of ceilings and/or quotas, etc., and
         are generally "housekeeping" in nature and are not appropriate
         for inclusion in this Manual.

     Each of the three types of memorandums will be annually (fiscal  year)
and sequentially numbered.  The first two PRMs, issued in July, 1976, were
designated PRM 76-1 and PRM 76-2.
*Under the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500)
-------
     PC's (issuances under the old system) which are still applicable to
the program have been retained in this Manual.  The identifying designations
(i.e.; PG-3) have been altered to conform with the new system.  All PG's
thus affected bear the new designation PRM 75 (serially numbered) and retain,
as well, the old PG designation for purposes of future reference.  (See
the Table of Contents for this Section.)

     All holders of this Manual of References will receive copies of per-
tinent PRM's and TM's.
-------
MCD 02.1
                  Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works
                     Construction Grants Program

                     PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDA

                           Table of Contents
PRM 75-1


PRM 75-2

PRM 75-3

PRM 75-4

PRM 75-5

PRM 75-6

PRM 75-7

PRM 75-8

PRM 75-9


PRM 75-10

PRM 75-11


PRM 75-12


PRM 75-13

PRM 75-14

PRM 75-15


PRM 75-16


PRM 75-17
Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for Waste               6/25/73
Treatment Projects

Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers           7/11/73

Waste Stabilization Ponds                            9/11/73

Standardized Construction Contract Documents         4/15/75

Non-Restrictive Specifications                        8/8/75

Adequacy of Treatment Certification                  11/8/73

Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation            2/7/74

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973                 3/1/74

Supplement to PC No. 25; Flood Disaster              11/4/74
Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)

User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery System      4/5/74

Approval  of Reimbursement Projects Not               4/17/74
Previously Serviced by EPA

Obligation, Recovery and Reallotment of Contract     5/13/74
Authority Funds

Management of Construction Grants Funds              4/19/74

Grant Funds and Project Segmenting                   5/10/74

Class Deviation—Use of Force Account Work            5/7/74
on Construction Grant Projects

Title II Regulations, Section 35.915(1)--             6/3/74
Reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 Projects

Construction of Pretreatment or Treatment             6/5/74
Facilities for Municipal Utilities
-------
PRM 75-18



PRM 75-19


PRM 75-20

PRM 75-21

PRM 75-22

PRM 75-23


PRM 75-24

PRM 75-25


PRM 75-26


PRM 75-27


PRM 75-28


PRM 75-29


PRM 75-30

PRM 75-31


PRM 75-32


PRM 75-33

PRM 75-34


PRM 75-35



PRM 75-36
Eligibility of Uastewater Treatment Facilities       9/17/74
at Municipally Owned Water Treatment Works for
Construction Grants

Cancelling PG-28 - User Charges and Industrial        7/9/74
Cost Recovery System

User Charge Systems                                  7/15/74

Overruns, Reserves and Priority Lists               10/16/74

Policy Re Retention of Payments                     11/18/74

Escalation Clauses in Construction Grant             12/9/74
Projects

Large City Problems in State Priority Lists           1/9/75

Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for Land
Treatment Processes

Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects      6/6/75
in the Construction Grants Process

Field Surveys to Identify Cultural Resources          7/2/75
Affected by EPA Construction Grants Projects

Flood Insurance Requirements Effective                7/8/75
July 1, 1975

EPA Procedures in  Initiating Debament Actions        8/5/75
Against Grantee Contractors

Cost Control                                          9/8/75

Facilitating EIS Preparation with Joint                 9/75
EIS/Assessments (Piggybacking)

Compliance with Title VI in the Construction         2/11/76
Grants Program

Discount Rate                                        8/11/75

Grants for Treatment and Control of Combined        12/16/75
Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharges

Allowable Costs for Construction of Treatment       12/29/75
Works that Jointly Serve Municipalities and
Federal  Facilities

Value Engineering  in the EPA Construction            1/20/76
Grants Program
-------
PRM 75-37

PRM 75-38


PRM 75-39



PRM 75-40


PRM 76-1

PRM 76-2
User Charge System: Plan and Schedule

Relationship Between 201 Facility Planning
and Water Quality Management (WQM) Planning

Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for the
Ultimate Disposal of Residues from Wastewater
Treatment Processes

Priority List Supplement to FY 1977
Construction Grants Guidance

Construction Grants Program Issuances

Cancellation of Certain Program Guidance
Memoranda (PGM)
 3/17/76

  2/9/76


  4/2/76



  5/7/76


 7/26/76

 7/26/76
MCD 02.2
PRM 76-3


PRM 75-4



PRM 76-5
Presentation of Local Government Costs of
Wastewater Treatment Works in Facility Plans

Coordination of Construction Grants Program
with EPA-Corps of Engineers Section 404/
Section 10 Permit Programs

Flood Insurance Requirements
 8/16/76


10/14/76



 8/16/76
MCD 02.3
PRM 77-1


PRM 77-2

PRM 77-3


PRM 77-4

PRM 77-5
Treatment Works for Recreational Parks, Industrial  11/23/76
Parks and Institutions

Grant Eligibility of Start-up Services              11/29/76

Plan of Operation for Municipal Wastewater          11/29/76
Treatment Facilities

Cost Allocations for Multiple Purpose Projects       12/3/76

Grant Eligibility of Land Acquisition by Lease-     12/15/76
holds or Easements for Use in Land Treatment
and Ultimate Disposal of Residues
-------
MCD 02.4
PRM 77-6

PRM 77-7

PRM 77-8
Easements

Management of State Project Priority Lists

Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects
 5/4/77

5/13/77

6/21/77
MCD 02.5
PRM 77-9

PRM 78-1


PRM 78-2

PRM 78-3

PRM 78-4


PRM 78-5


PRM 78-6

PRM 78-7


PRM 78-8


PRM 78-9

PRM 78-10
Reallotment of Recovered Funds                        8/5/77

Erosion and Sediment Control in the Construction    12/29/77
Grants Program

Discount Rate                                        1/26/78

Buy American                                         2/17/78

Grant Eligibility of Land Acquired for Storage       2/17/78
in Land Treatment Systems

Interim Management of FY 1978 State Priority         2/17/78
Lists Under the 1977 Amendments

Industrial Cost Recovery—Interim Guidance           2/17/78

Combined Step ?. and Step 3 Construction Grant        2/17/78
Awards (Step 2+3)

Rejection of All Bids: Guidance for EPA              2/13/78
Concurrence Function

Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects          3/3/78

Infiltration/Inflow Program Guidance                 3/17/78
MCD  02.6
 PRM  78-11


 PRM  78-12
Toxicity of Chemical Grouts for Sewer
Rehabilitation

Preconstruction Lag Management
5/11/78


6/12/78
-------
 MCD 02.7
 PRM 78-13



 PRM 79-1


 PRM 79-2

 PRM 79-3



 PRM 79-4

 PRM 79-5

 PRM 79-6
 Interim Priority List Guidance for the               6/29/78
 Development and Management of FY 1979 State
 Priority Lists

 Safety Requirements for the Design and Operation    10/23/78
 of Chlorination Facilities Using Gaseous Chlorine

 Royalties for Use of or for Rights in Patents       11/13/78

 Revision of Agency Guidance for Evaluation of       11/15/78
 Land Treatment Alternatives Employing Surface
 Application

 Discount Rates                                      11/17/78

 Construction  Incentive  Program                      12/28/78

 Priority  List  Guidance  for  the Development            1/8/79
 and Management of  FY  1980 State Project
 Priority  Lists
MCDJ02J3

PRM 79-7


PRM 79-8

PRM 79-9



HCD 02.9

PRM 79-10

PRM 79-11


PRM 80-1

PRM 80-2
Grant Funding of Projects Requiring Treatment
More Stringent than Secondary

Small Wastewater Systems

Outlay Management in the Construction Grants
Program
Qualification of Major Items of Equipment

Funding of Waste Load Allocations and Water
Quality Analyses for POTW Decisions

Discount Rate

Step 2 and Step 3 Architect/Engineer Level of
Effort Study
 3/9/79


 5/9/79

 5/11/79
 7/12/79

  9/6/79


11/26/79

12/20/79
-------
                                         PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-1
                                         Program Guidance Memorandum
                                         PG-3



        ?   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       ^                      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                 June 25, 1973
                                                        OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM                                              AND GENERAL COUNSEL

SUBJECT:  Use of Revenue Sharing Funds
          for Waste Treatment Projects

FROM:     Assistant General Counsel Grants

TO:       Director, Grants Administration Division
          Director, Municipal Waste Water Systems Division


     Questions have arisen concerning the extent to which revenue sharing
funds obtained by co'nmunities or states under the State and Local Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972 (PL 92-512) may be utilized for projects funded by
EPA.

     Generally, revenue sharing funds may not be used as matching funds
under EPA grants, as is made clear in regulations issued on April 10, 1973
by the Department of Treasury (31 CFR Part 51, published at 38 F.R. 9132):

          § 51.30 Matching funds.

               "(a)  In general. --Entitlement funds may not be used,
               directly or indirectly, as a contribution in order to
               obtain any Federal funds under any Federal program.
               The indirect use of entitlement funds to match Federal
               funds is defined to mean the allocation of entitlement
               funds to a nonmatching expenditure and thereby releasing
               or displacing local funds which are used for the purpose
               of matching Federal funds.  This prohibition on use of
               entitlement funds as matching funds applies to Federal
               programs where Federal funds are required to be matched
               by non-Federal funds and to Federal programs which allow
               matching from either Federal or non-Federal funds."

     However, revenue sharing funds may be used to "supplement" Federal Grant
funds, as further set forth in §51.30(g) of the Treasury regulations:
-------
            "(g)  Use of entitlement funds to supplement Federal
            grant funds.  The prohibition on use of entitlement
            funds contained in paragraph (a) of this section does
            not prevent the use of entitlement funds to supple-
            ment other Federal grant funds.   For example, if
            expenditures for a project exceed the amount available
            from non-Federal funds plus matched Federal funds, the
            recipient government may use entitlement funds to de-
            fray the excess costs:
            Provided, however,  That the entitlement funds are not
            used to match other Federal funds:  And Provided further,
            That in the case of a unit of local government, the use
            of entitlement funds to supplement Federal  grants is
            restricted to the category of expenditures  as set forth
            in i 51.31."

Accordingly, since "environmental protection (including sewage disposal,
sanitation, and pollution abatement)" is an explicitly  authorized expendi-
ture in §51.31 of the Treasury regulations,  cost overruns or sewer line or
land acquisition costs not included within the scope of an EPA grant as
allowable costs may be funded through any revenue sharing funds available to
the EPA grantee.

     In a memorandum to the Director, Grants Administration Division, dated
August 21, 1972 concerning the use of other federal grant funds to meet EPA
matching requirements.  Mr. Settle of this office set forth the general rule
that

                 "Funds granted by other Federal agencies for
                 projects may not, absent explicit statutory
                 authorization, be used to meet EPA statutory
                 grant  'matching' reguirements for those same
                 projects."

His memorandum discusses a number of other Federal statutes which do permit
at least limited use of Federal funds for matching purposes.  Federal revenue
sharing funds available under PL 92-512 fall within the "general  rule" and
cannot be used to match EPA grant funds.

     Enforcement of this prohibition upon the use of Federal revenue sharing
funds is a function of the Department of Treasury, which should be notified
of any apparant violation.
                                             Joseph M.  Zorc
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:  Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers
                                                      DATE:  July 11,  1973
FROM:
TO:
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Waste Water Systems Division

All Regional Administrators
Attn:  Air and Water Programs Divisions
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-2
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-14
              We have recently received a letter from a firm that  cites
         restrictive experience clauses in several  projects (copy  attached).
         The specific instances cited are being looked into by the Regions
         concerned.

              Restrictive experience clauses in bid specifications are not
         allowable because they prevent the entrance of new firms  and
         innovations into  he bidding process.   They also are contrary to
         the spirit, if not the letter, of the  law, especially Section 204(a)(6)
         of the FWPCA Amendments of 1972, and Section 35.935-1 of  the Title II
         regulations.

              In view of these factors, it needs to be re-emphasized that
         the policy on restrictive experience clauses still applies as
         expressed in CG Memorandum No. 71-8, dated March 15, 1971, entitled
         "Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers."  That memorandum
         discourages the general use of experience  clauses, but where they
         are used, the specifications must indicate that equipment that does
         not meet the specified experience period can be considered if the
         equipment supplier or manufacturer is  willing to provide  a bond or
         cash deposit which will guarantee replacement in the event of failure.

              Since State review of plans and specifications should include
         attention to any experience clauses, we request that you  inform each
         State agency in your Region of the non-allowance of restrictive
         experience clauses.
         Attachment
 EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
  4
  I    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  *                      WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                   OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
                                              PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-3
                                               PROGRAM  GUIDANCE NO.  PG-16
                                               DATE:  9/11/73
TO:        All  Regional  Administrators
           Attention:   Director, Air & Water Programs Division

FROM:      Harold P.  Cahill, Jr.
           Director,  Municipal  Wd^^Wafter

SUBJECT:   Waste Stabilization  Ponds


Introduction:

     The information  on secondary treatment (40 CFR 133) has focused
attention on the limitations of some wastewater treatment processes
which, in the past, were defined as "secondary".  In particular,
there have been reports that many waste stabilization ponds may not
meet the secondary treatment requirements.  The purpose of this
memorandum is to establish policies relating to waste stabilization
ponds.

Policy:

     Waste stabilization ponds  must achieve effluent limitation
requirements.  As a minimum, they must meet effluent limitations based
on the secondary treatment performance requirements contained in 40
CFR Part 133, or be upgraded to meet such requirements.

Applicability:

     This memorandum is applicable to municipal wastewater stabilization
ponds where the design is based on photosynthetic oxygenation.
-------
Discussion:

     Section 301(b)(l)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 ("the Act") requires that publicly owned treatment
works achieve effluent limitations based on secondary treatment as
defined by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304(d)(l) of the Act
(See 40 CFR 133).  Neither the Act nor its legislative history indicate
an intent to vary this requirement for different types of treatment
processes.  Therefore it has been concluded that the policy for waste
stabilization ponds should be as stated in the previous section.

     It is not the intent of this policy to require that existing waste
stabilization ponds be replaced by mechanical plants.  We recognize the
reliability and operational simplicity factors which in the past have
led many municipalities (particularly smaller communities) to select
waste stabilization ponds.  In most cases it should be feasible to
upgrade existing ponds while retaining these features.

Regional Action on Proposed New Waste Stabilization Ponds:

     In view of the requirements of the Act, Regional Administrators
should exercise caution in awarding a construction grant where a new
pond will be the sole treatment method.  Such grants should not be
awarded unless the grant applicant clearly demonstrates that the
proposed pond will meet applicable effluent limitations.

Future Action:

     EPA has formed a work group to assemble information on upgrading
existing ponds and define the conditions under which new ponds could
be acceptable.  Target date for this information is November, 1973.
Additional Information:

     The attached memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations to the Regional Administrator, Region VII
provides additional background on this subject.
   Attachment
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Secondary Treatment Regulations
                                                               DATE:  August 17,  1973
FROM-.
TO:
         John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
               for Water Program Operations

         Jerome H. Svore
         Regional Administrator, Region VII
              This is in response to your June 29, 1973 memorandum to Mr. Cahill
         in which you addressed the difficulty of achieving the levels of effluent
         quality as defined in the proposed secondary treatment regulation with
         waste stabilization ponds.

              We agree that waste stabilization ponds as they are presently
         designed, will probably not be capable of achieving the proposed secondary
         treatment regulation.  From the data we have, it appears that the BOD^
         limitation is achievable.  However, the suspended solids and fecal
         coliform limits will require improved pond design and operation and
         additional treatment steps for algae removal and disinfection.

              You suggested that for an interim period of one or two years we
         approve ponds with a minimum of three cells operated in series if water
         quality criteria would not be violated.  Assuming that feasible and
         economical techniques are developed in the interim period, you proposed
         to then require upgrading of ponds to meet the secondary treatment require-
         ments.

              This approach to the problem is not permitted by the Act.  All
         publicly owned treatment works must achieve secondary treatment as
         defined in regulations published pursuant to Section 304(d)(l) by 1977.
         The secondary treatment definition must be based on the capabilities
         of secondary treatment technology and not water quality effects.

              The only feasible means we have for accepting ponds as they are
         presently designed would be to include in the secondary treatment
         regulations a separate definition of the effluent quality attainable by
         waste stabilization ponds.  This definition would probably  include
         limits on only 6005 since the suspended solids and fecal coliform levels
         are generally unpredictable.  The major problem with this approach is
 EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
that the regulation would also have to recognize separately the capabili-
ties of all other "secondary treatment" process combinations of which
there are many.  This would lead to extreme difficulties in the cost-
effectiveness analysis, writing discharge permits etc. and would not
encourage improvements in marginal secondary treatment processes such
as ponds and trickling filters.

     In our opinion, the secondary treatment requirements must be uniform
for all plants.  It must be sufficiently stringent to force improved
design and operation without precluding the use of presently available
technologies.

     We do not feel that the regulation, as proposed precludes the use
of waste stablization ponds.  Rather it will permit the use of ponds
with other unit processes added to accomplish algae removal and disinfec-
tion or with disposal of the effluent to the land rather than navigable
waters.  Substitution of mechanical plants for existing ponds does not
appear to be the solution in the majority of cases.  Techniques that can
be considered for pond upgrading are listed below:

     a.  Improvements in pond design.

         1.  Baffles to prevent short circuiting
         2.  Controlled drawoff between cells
         3.  Cleaning sedimentation cells
         4.  Supplemental aeration
         5.  Expansion by adding cells
         6.  Effluent recirculation
         7.  Series operation of cells

     b.  Land Application of effluent.

     c.  Solids (algae) removal from effluent.

         1.  Intermittant sand filter
         2.  Chemical coagulation/sedimentation
         3.  Chemical coagulation/filtration
         4.  Centrifugation
         5.  Dissolved air floatation

     d.  Disinfection.
-------
     As you know, we are now considering a definition for best practicable
technology (BPT) which includes requirements for seasonal nitrification.
From the data we have, it appears that once upgraded to include algae
removal and disinfection, ponds will  also be capable of meeting the
BPT definition being considered without additional  treatment steps.
Since the BPT definition must be achieved by all POTW not later than
1983 it seems imperative that we not relax the secondary treatment require-
ments for ponds now hoping that better solutions will be found later.


     The decision has been made that the secondary treatment regulation
will not be modified to accomodate the capabilities of waste stabiliza-
tion ponds as they are presently designed and operated.  A program
memorandum reflecting this decision is being prepared and will be
forwarded to the Regional Administrators shortly.  The secondary treat-
ment regulation has been finalized and will be published in the Federal
Register on about August 20th (A copy is attached for your information).

     Recognizing that there is little information which has been published
on pond upgrading techniques, we are also beginning development of
technical bulletin on the subject.  A working group to assist in this
effort is being formed.  Bill Whittington of the Municipal Waste Water
Systems Division has been assigned responsibility for the Technical
Bulletin and will chair the working group.  He will be requesting
Region VII participation.  We hope to have a final draft of the Technical
Bulletin by late September.
-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                                       APR 1 5 1975
SUBJECT: Standardized Construction Contract Documents
         Program Guidance Memorandum No. PG-17A

FROM:    Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director j\J
         Municipal Construction DivisiqrxC/if

TO-.      All Regional Administrators
         ATTN:  Construction Grants Personnel
                                                              DATE:
                                                     RE?UIRMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75.4
                                                     Guidance Memorandum
              The  attached  revised  standardized construction contract documents
         have been prepared by  the  Interagency Committee Coordination of Sewer
         and Water Programs.  The documents are the product of a working group
         composed  of representatives  of  professional organizations, trade associations,
         and the Federal  agencies involved  in the  grant programs for sewer and
         waste facilities.

              Although  the  use  of the documents by grantees is not mandatory, in
         the interest of  simplifying  procedures, grantees  should be urged to use
         the standardized construction contract documents  to the extent that they
         are compatible with local  and State laws.  The importance of these forms
         should also be conveyed to the  State to gain  their support for their
         regular use.

              While the forms serve well  as basic  contract documents, they do not
         address all informational  requirements prerequisite to EPA grant offers.
         Applicants therefore,  will have to be apprised of the need to furnish
         additional supporting  documents such as wage  determinations, evidence
         of competitive bidding, etc., as necessary.
EPA Form 1320-6 (R*v. 6-72)
-------
                        CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

                                 FOR

CONSTRUCTION  OF FEDERALLY  ASSISTED WATER AND  SEWER PROJECTS

                        LIST  OF DOCUMENTS

1, ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS        6,  PAYMENT BOND
2,  INFORMATION FOR  BIDDERS      7,  PERFORMANCE BOND
3, BID                             8.  NOTICE OF AWARD
4, BID BOND                        9.  NOTICE TO PROCEED
5, AGREEMENT                     10,  CHANGE ORDER
                   11, GENERAL CONDITIONS


                              PREFACE

     These Contract Documents are acceptable for use by borrowers and grantees
in Federally assisted  projects funded by the below listed Federal agencies.

     Local or state legislation may  prohibit the use of some sections.  The
substitution or revision of individual  sections, therefore,  may  be deemed
appropriate.

     Jointly prepared  and endorsed by:

     Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce
     Environmental Protection Agency
     Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture
     Department of Housing and Urban Development
     American Consulting Engineers Council
     American Public Works Association
     American Society  of Civil Engineers
     Associated General Contractors  of  America
     National Society  of Professional Engineers
     National Utility  Contractors Association

     Copies of  these Documents may be obtained  from the following associations:

Associated General Contractors of America  American Consulting  Engineers Council
     1957 E Street, N.W.                         1155  15th Street, N.W.
     Washington, D.C.                            Washington, D.C.
     Tele: 202/393-2040                         Tele: 202/296-1780

National Society of Professional Engineers American Public Works Association
     2029 K Street, N.W.                         1313  East 60th  Street
     Washington, D. C.                           Chicago, Illinois
     Tele: 202/331-7020                         Tele:  312/947-2542
-------
                          ADVERTISEMENT FOR  BIDS
    Separate sealed HHDS for the construction of  (briefly describe nature, scop*:, ,ind

major elements of the work)	.	   	 _
will  be received by	._    	

at the office of	

until	,  (Standard Time —Daylight Savings Time)	

19	, and then at said office publicly opened and read aloud.

    The CONTRACT DOCUMENTS may be examined at the following locations:
    Copies of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS may be obtained at the office of

    	.	located at	
upon payment of $-
for each set.
    Any BIDDER, upon returning the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS promptly and in good

condition,  will be refunded  his payment, and any  non-bidder upon so returning  the

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS will be refunded $	
                 Date
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
                                        Documenl No 1
                              Advertisement lor Bids page 1 ol 1
-------
                         INFORMATION FOR  BIDDERS
    BIDS will be received by
(herein called the "OWNER"), at.
until	,  19	,  and then at said office publicly opened  and read

aloud.
    Each BID must be submitted in a sealed envelope, addressed to_
   	at 	
Each sealed envelope containing a BID must be plainly marked on the outside as BID
for	and the
envelope should bear on the outside the name of the BIDDER, his address, his license
number if applicable and  the name of the  project for which  the BID is submitted. If
forwarded by mail, the sealed envelope containing the BID must be enclosed in another
envelope addressed to the OWNER at	


    All BIDS must be made on the required BID form. All blank spaces for BID prices
must be filled in, in ink or typewritten, and the BID form must be fully completed and
executed when submitted. Only one copy of the BID form is required.
    The OWNER may waive any informalities or minor defects or reject any  and all
BIDS. Any  BID may be withdrawn prior to the above scheduled time for the opening
of BIDS or  authorized postponement thereof. Any BID received after the time and date
specified shall not be considered. No BIDDER may withdraw a BID within 60 days after
the actual date of the opening thereof. Should there be reasons why the contract cannot
be awarded within  the specified period, the time may be  extended by mutual agree-
ment between the OWNER and the BIDDER.
    BIDDERS must satisfy themselves of the accuracy of  the estimated quantities in
the BID Scheduleby examination of the site  and a review of the drawings and specifica-
tions including ADDENDA. After BIDS have been submitted, the BIDDER shall not as-
sert that there was a misunderstanding concerning the quantities of WORK  or of the
nature of the WORK to be done.
    The OWNER shall provide to BIDDERS prior to BIDDING, all information which is
pertinent to,  and delineates and  describes,  the land owned and rights-of-way acquired
or to be acquired.
  The  CONTRACT DOCUMENTS contain the provisions required for  the  construc-
tion of the  PROJECT. Information obtained from an officer, agent, or employee of the
OWNER or any other person shall not  affect  the risks or  obligations assumed by the
CONTRACTOR or relieve him from fulfilling any of the conditions of the contract.
    Each BID must  be accompanied  by a  BID bond payable to the  OWNER for five
percent of  the total amount of the BID. As soon as the BID prices have been compared,
the OWNER will return the BONDS of all except the three lowest responsible BIDDERS.
When  the  Agreement is executed  the bonds of the two remaining unsuccessful BID-
DERS  will  be returned. The BID  BOND of the successful BIDDER will be retained until
the payment BOND and performance BOND have been executed and approved, after
which it will be returned. A certified check may be used in lieu of a BID BOND.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                            Document No 2
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS                               Information lor Bidders page 1 of 2
-------
    A performance BOND and a payment BOND, each in the amount of 100 percent of
the CONTRACT PRICE, with  a corporate surety approved by the OWNER, will he re-
quired for the faithful performance of the contract.
    Attorneys-in-fact who sign  BID BONDS  or  payment  BONDS  and performance
BONDS must file with each BOND a certified and effective dated copy of their power
of attorney.
    The party to whom the contract  is awarded will be required to execute  the Agree-
ment and obtain the performance BOND and payment BOND within ten (10) calendar
days from  the  date when NOTICE OF AWARD is  delivered to  the BIDDER. The
NOTICE OF AWARD  shall be accompanied by the necessary Agreement  and BOND
forms. In case of failure of the BIDDER to execute the Agreement, the OWNER may at
his option consider the BIDDER in default, in which case the BID BOND accompanying
the proposal shall become the  property of the OWNER.
    The OWNER within ten (10) days of receipt of acceptable performance BOND, pay-
ment BOND and Agreement signed by  the party to whom the Agreement was awarded
shall sign the Agreement and  return to such party an executed duplicate of the Agree-
ment. Should the OWNER not execute  the Agreement within such period, the BIDDER
may by  WRITTEN NOTICE withdraw his signed Agreement. Such notice of withdrawal
shall be effective upon receipt of the notice by the OWNER.
    The NOTICE TO PROCEED shall be issued within ten (10)  days  of the execution of
the Agreement  by the OWNER. Should there be  reasons why the  NOTICE TO PRO-
CEED cannot be issued within such period, the time may be extended by mutual agree-
ment between the OWNER and CONTRACTOR. If the NOTICE TO  PROCEED has not
been issued within the ten (10) day  period or  within  the period mutually agreed upon,
the CONTRACTOR may terminate the Agreement without  further liability on the part
of either party.
    The OWNER may make  such investigations as he deems  necessary to determine
the ability of the BIDDER to perform the WORK, and the BIDDER shall furnish to the
OWNER all such information and data for  this  purpose  as the OWNER may request.
The  OWNER reserves the right to reject any BID  if the evidence submitted by, or  in-
vestigation of, such  BIDDER fails to satisfy the OWNER that such BIDDER is properly
qualified to carry out the obligations of the Agreement and  to complete the  WORK con-
templated therein.
    A conditional or qualified BID will  not be accepted.
    Award will be made to the lowest responsible BIDDER.
    All  applicable laws, ordinances, and,the rules and  regulations of all  authorities
having  jurisdiction over  construction  of  the  PROJECT shall apply to the contract
throughout.
    Each BIDDER is responsible for inspecting the site and for reading and being thor-
oughly familiar  with the CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS. The failure  or omission of any
BIDDER to do any of the foregoing shall in no way relieve  any BIDDER from any obli-
gation in respect to his BID.
    Further, the BIDDER agrees to abide by the requirements under  Executive Order
No. 11246,  as amended, including specifically the provisions of the equal  opportunity
clause set forth in the SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS.
    The low BIDDER shall supply the names and addresses  of major material SUP-
PLIERS and SUBCONTRACTORS when requested to do so by the OWNER.
    Inspection  trips for  prospective  BIDDERS will leave from  the  office of the

	.	at	
    The  ENGINEER  is	His address
 is
 Document No 2
 Information for Bidders page 2 of 2
-------
                                       BID


Proposal of	.	(hereinafter

called "BIDDER"), organized and existing under the laws of the State of	

doing business as	*.

To  the	

	(hereinafter called "OWNER").
    In compliance with your Advertisement for Bids, BIDDER hereby proposes to per-

form all WORK for the construction of	
in strict accordance  with  the  CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS,  within  the time set forth

therein, and at the prices stated below.

    By  submission of this  BID,  each BIDDER certifies, and  in  the case of a joint BID

each party thereto certifies as to his own orj>ani/ation, that this BID has been arrived at

independently,  without  consultation,  communication, or agreement as to any  matter

relating to this BID with any other BIDDER or with any competitor.

    BIDDER hereby agrees lo commence WORK under this contract on or before a date

to be specified in the NOTICE TO PROCEED and to fully complete the PROJECT within

	consecutive  calendar  days  thereafter.  BIDDER  further

agrees  to pay as liquidated damages, the sum of $	for  each  consecutive cal-

endar day thereafter as provided in Section 15 of the General Conditions.

    BIDDER acknowledges receipt of the following ADDENDUM:
 *Insert "a corporation", "a partnership", or "an individual" as applicable.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                             Document No 3
CEDERAU-Y ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS                                          Bid page 1 of 3
-------
    BIDDER agrees to perform all  the work  described in the CONTRACT  DOCU-
MENTS for the following unit prices or lump sum:


                                  BID  SCHEDULE

   NOTK: HIDS shall include sales lax and ,ill other aimin.able taxes and fees.
NO.    ITEM                UNIT     UNIT PRICE      AMOUNT   TOTAL PRICK
Document No 3
Bid page 2 of 3
-------
NO.    ITEM               UNIT     UNIT PRICE       AMOUNT   TOTAL PRICE
TOTAL OF BID	$_
LUMP SUM PRICE (if applicable) 	$~
                           Respectfully submitted:
                                       Signature
                                  License Number (if applicable)
(SEAL —if BID is by a corporation)

Attest	
                                                                             Document. No 3
                                                                             Bid page 3 of 3
-------
                                   BID BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, the undersigned,
                                                            	  as  Principal,  and
                                                      	  as  Surety,  are hereby
held and  firmly hound unto	 __ ._ as OWNER


in the penal sum  of	


for the payment of which, well and truly to he made, we hereby jointly and severally


bind ourselves, successors and assigns.


Signed, this	—day of	,  19	


The Condition of the above obligation is such  that whereas the Principal has submitted


to		_a  certain  HID,


attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof to enter into a contract in writing, for the
NOW, THEREFORE,


     (a) If said BID shall be rejected, or


     (b) If said BID shall be accepted and the Principal shall execute and deliver a con-


        tract in  the  Form of Contract  attached  hereto (properly completed in accord-


        ance with said  BID) and shall  furnish a BOND for his faithful performance of


        said contract, and for the payment  of all persons performing labor or furnish-


        ing materials in connection therewith, and shall in all other respects perform


        the agreement created by the acceptance of said BID,


then this obligation shall be void, otherwise the same shall remain in force and effect;


it being expressly understood and agreed that  the liability of the Surety for any  and


all claims  hereunder shall,  in no  event, exceed the penal amount of this obligation as


herein staled.


CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                             Document No 4
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS                                        Bid Bond Page 1 of 2
-------
The Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that the obligations of said
Surety and  its BOND shall be in no way impaired or affected by any extension of the
time within which the OWNER may accept such BID; and said Surety does herby waive
notice of any such extension.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and the Surety have  hereunto set their hands
and seals, and such of them as are corporations have caused their corporate seals to be
hereto affixed and these presents  to be signed by  their  proper officers, the day  and
year first set forth above.
                 Principal
                                  (L.S.)
                  Surety
By:
IMPORTANT —Surety companies executing BONDS must appear on the Treasury De-
partment's most  current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact
business in the state where the project is located.
Document No. 4
Bid Bond Page 2 of 2
-------
                                  AGREEMENT




 THIS  AGRKKMKNT, made  this  	 day of.            ,  19	  by



 and between                 	   .___   	  -  ,   hereinafter called  "OWNER"
                         (Name of O*neri (an maividual)
 and   ._    . . .     .  	.. 	  	  doing business as (an individual,) or (a


 partnership,) or  (a corporation) hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR".


 WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the payments and agreements herein-


 after mentioned:


     1. The CONTRACTOR will commence and complete the construction of
     2. The CONTRACTOR will furnish all of the material, supplies, tools, equipment,


 labor and other services necessary for the construction and completion of the PROJECT


 described herein.


     3. The CONTRACTOR will commence the work required b\ the CONTRACT DOC-


 UMENTS within   .       _.  calendar  days  after  the date of the NOTICE TO PRO-


 CEED and will complete the  same; within	 calendar days unless the period


 for completion is extended otherwise by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.


     4. The CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all of the WORK described in the CON-


 TRACT DOCUMENTS and compK with the terms therein for the sum of S _. 	,


 or as shown in the BID schedule.


     5. The term "CONTRACT DOCUMENTS" means and includes the; following:


      (A) Advertisement For BIDS


      (B)  Information For BIDDERS


      (C) BID


      (I)) BID BOND


      (E) Agreement
rONTRAC7 DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                            Documfnt No 5

I- I Of FMLI Y ASSISTED WATER AND 3! WER PROJECTS                                      Agreement Page 1 of 3
-------
     (F)  General Conditions


     (G)  SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS


     (H)  Payment BOND


     (I)  Performance BOND


     (J)  NOTICE OF AWARD


     (K)  NOTICE TO PROCEED


     (L)  CHANGE ORDER


     (M) DRAWINGS prepared by	
         numbered	through	, and dated

         19	


      (N) SPECIFICATIONS prepared or issued by	
          dated	19-


      (OJ  ADDENDA:


          No.	dated
No. ._
No.
Nn
Mn
No. .
, dHtPfl
, Hfited
, fin ted
, rl.'iterl
, dated
19
, 19
, 19
, 1«
. 19
    6. The OWNER will pay to the CONTRACTOR in the manner and at such times as


set  forth in the General Conditions  such amounts as  required by  the  CONTRACT


DOCUMENTS.


    7. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parlies hereto and their  respective


heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.



IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused  to be executed


by  their duly authorixed officials, this Agreement in  (	)  each of
                                                          (Number ol Copies)

which shall be deemed an original on the date first above written.



Document No 5
Agreement Page 2 of 3
-------
(SEAL)

ATTEST:
Name
Title
(SEAL)

ATTEST:
Name
                 (Please Typel
                                            OWNER:
                                            13 Y
                                            Name
                                            Title
                                                             (Please Type)
                                             CONTRACTOR:
                                             BY

                                             Name
                                             Address
                                                              l Please Type)
                 (Please Type)
                                                                            Document No 5
                                                                        Agreement. Page 3 of 3
-------
                                  PAYMENT  BOND

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that
                                     (Name of Contractor)
                                     lAddress of Contiauon

a   __         _   _  . _.		              -,   hereinafter  call (id   Principal.
       (Corporalion Partnership or Individual)

and	  .	—	 - ..      -	         - -  	
                                      (Name of Surety)


                                      (Address of Suretyi

hereinafter called  Suretv, are held and firmly hound unto 	  	
                                      (Name ot Owner]
                                      (Address of Owner)

 hereinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of	D< liars, $(	  )

 in lawful money of the United Slates, for the  payment  of which sum  well  and trul\ to
 be made,  we hind  ourselves, successors,  and assigns, jointK and  severally, firmly b\
 ihese presents.
 THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is  such  that whereas, the Prindp.il entered
 into a certain contract with the OWNER, dated the	dav of ~-
 19	      , a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the  construc-
 tion of:
NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall promptly make payment to all persons, firms,
SUBCONTRACTORS, and corporations furnishing materials for or performing labor in
the prosecution of the WORK provided for in such contract, and any authorized  exten-
sion or modification thereof, including all amounts due for materials, lubricants,  oil,
gasoline, coal and coke, repairs on  machinery, equipment and tools, consumed or used
in connection with the construction of such WORK, and all insurance premiums on said
WORK, and for all labor, performed in such  WORK whether by SUBCONTRACTOR or
otherwise,  then this obligation shall be void; otherwise  to remain in full  force and
effect.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                               Document No 6
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS                                      Payment Bond Page 1 of 2
-------
PROVIDED, FURTHER, that the said Surety for value received hereby stipulates and
agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the con-
tract or to the WORK to  be performed thereunder  or the  SPECIFICATIONS accom-
panying the same shall in  any wise affect its obligation on this BOND, and it does here-
by  waive notice of any such change, extension.of time,  alteration or addition to the
terms of the contract or to  the WORK or to the SPECIFICATIONS.

PROVIDED, FURTHER, that no final settlement  between the OWNER and the CON-
TRACTOR shall abridge the right of any beneficiary hereunder, whose claim may be
unsatisfied.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed in	counterparts,  each
                                                          (number)

one of which shall be deemed an original, this the	day of	
19	

ATTEST:
                                                            Principal
               (Principal) Secretary

 (SEAL)                                    By	(s)
 Witness as to Principal
                                                             Surety

 ATTEST:                                  Bv  	
                                                          Attorney-m-Fact
 Witness as to Surety
                  (Address)
NOTE: Date of BOND must not be prior to date of Contract.
If CONTRACTOR is Partnership, all partners should execute BOND.

IMPORTANT: Surety companies executing BONDS must appear on the Treasury De-
partment's most current  list  (Circular 570 as amended) and be  authori/ed to transact
business in the State where the PROJECT is located.
Document No 6
Payment Bond. Page 2 of 2
-------
                              PERFORMANCE BOND

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that
                                     (Name of Contractor)
       (Corporation Partnership or individual!
                                    {Address of Contractor)

                                   	   hereinafter  called  Principal,  and
                                      (Name of Surety)
                                     (Address ot Surety)

hereinafter called Surety, are; held and firmlv hound unto
                                      (Name of owneri
                                     (Address of Owner)

hereinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of _
                                                         .Dollars,  S(.
in lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to
he  made, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and  severally, firmly  by
these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered
into a certain contract with the OWNER, dated the	—day of	,
19	a copy of  which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction
of:
NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall well, truly and faithfully perform its duties,
all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of said contract dur-
ing the original term thereof, and any extensions thereof which may bo granted  by the
OWNER, with or without notice to the Surety and during the one year guaranty period,
and  if he shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred under such contract, and shall
fully indemnify and save harmless the OWNER from all costs and damages which  it
may suffer by reason of failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the OWNER all
outlay and expense which the OWNER may incur in making good any default, then this
obligation shall be  void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                              Document No 7
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS                                    Performance Bond Page 1 ot 2
-------
 PROVIDED, FURTHER, that the said surety, Tor value received hereby stipulates and
 agrees thai no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the con-
 tract or to WORK to he performed thereunder or the SPECIFICATIONS accompanying
 the same shall in any wise affect ils obligation on this BOND, and it does hereby waive
 notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the
 contract or to the WORK or to the SPECIFICATIONS.

 PROVIDED, FURTHER, that no final  settlement between the OWNER and the CON-
 TRACTOR shall abridge the right of any beneficiary  hereunder, whose claim  may be
 unsatisfied.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  (his instrument is  executed in

 one of which shall be deemed an original, this the  _
 19	
counterparts, each
 ATTEST:
 (SEAL)
 ATTEST:
                (Principal! Ser retary
               (Witness as to Principal)
                  (Address)
 [SEAL!
                (Surety) Secretary
                                                               Surely
                Witness as to Surety
                                            Hv
                                                            Attorney in Fact
                  (Address)
 NOTE: Date of BOND must not be prior to date of Contract.
        If CONTRACTOR is Partnership, all partners should execute BOND.

 IMPORTANT: Surety companies executing BONDS must appear on  the Treasury De-
 partment's  most  current  list  (Circular 570  as  amended)  and be authorized to tran.sac
 business in the state where the PROJECT is located.
Document No 7
Performance Bond Page 2 of 2
-------
                              NOTICE OF  AWARD

To: 	
PROJKCT  Description:	
    The  OWNER has considered the BID submitted  by you for  the above described
WORK in response to its Advertisement for Bids dated  	    _. __. 19     	  ,
and Information for Bidders.

    You  are  hereby notified  that your BID has been accepted for items in  the amount
of $	'-.
    You  are  required by the Information for Bidders to execute the Agreement and lur-
nish the required CONTRACTOR'S Performance  BOND, Payment BOND  and certifi-
cates of insurance within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this Notice to you.
    If you fail to execute said Agreement and to  furnish said BONDS within ten (10)
days  from the date of this Notice, said OWNER will be entitled to consider all your
rights arising out of the OWNER'S acceptance of your BID as abandoned and as a for-
feiture of your BID BOND. The OWNER will be entitled to such other rights as may be
granted by law.
    You are  required to return an acknowledged copy of this NOTICE OF AWARD to
the OWNER.

    Dated this	day of	19	
                                           By

                                           Title
                           ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE

          Receipt of the above NOTICE OF AWARD is hereby acknowledged

by	
this the	day of	19	

By	

Title	
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                         '    Document No 8
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJfcCIS                                   Notice of Award Page 1 ol 1
-------
To:
 NOTICE TO PROCEED

	Date: 	
                                           Project:
    You are hereby notified to commence  WORK in accordance with the Agreement
dated  	,  19	, on  or before	19	„, and  you
are to complete the WORK within	consecutive calendar days thereafter.
The date of completion of all WORK is therefore	19	
       ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE

Receipt of the above NOTICE TO PRO-

CEED is hereby acknowledged by 	
                                                             Owner
                                           By
                                           Title
this  the

of	
      _dav
  _, 19.
By
Title
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
                                            Document No 9
                                    Notice to Proceed Page 1 of 1
-------
                               CHANGE ORDER

                                        Order No.

                                        Date: 	
                                         Agreement Date:

NAME OF PROJECT: 	
OWNER:
CONTRACTOR:   __
The following changes are hereby made to the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS:


justification:


Change to CONTRACT PRICE:

Original CONTRACT PRICE            S	
Current CONTRACT PRICE adjusted by previous CHANCE ORDER S	

The CONTRACT PRICE due to this CHANGE ORDER will he (increased) (decreased)

by: $	

The new CONTRACT PRICE including this CHANGE ORDER will be $	  _.

Change to CONTRACT TIME:

The CONTRACT TIME  will be (increased) (decreased) by	calendar days.

The date for completion of all work will be	(Date).

Approvals Required:
To  be effective this Order must be approved by the Federal agency if it changes the
scope or objective  of the PROJECT, or as may otherwise be required by  the SUPPLE-
MENTAL GENERAL CONDITIONS.

Requested  by:	
Recommended  by:  	

Ordered by:	

Accepted  by:	
Federal Agency Approval (where applicable)
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF                                          Document No 10
FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS                                   Change Order Page 1 of 1
-------
                                    GENERAL  CONDITIONS
 1. Definitions
 2. Additional Instructions and Detail Drawings
 3. Schedules, Reports and Records
 4. Drawings and Specifications
 5. Shop Drawings
 6. Materials, Services und Facilities
 7. Inspection and Testing
 8. Substitutions
 9. Patents
10. Surveys. Permits, Regulations
11. Protection of Work, Property, Persons
12. Supervision by Contractor
13. Changes in the Work
14. Changes in Contract Price
15. Time for Completion and Liquidated Damages
16. Correction of Work
17. Subsurface Conditions
18. Suspension of Work, Termination and Delay
19. Payments to Contractor
20 Acceptance of Final Payment as Release
21 Insurance
22. Contract Security
23. Assignments
24. Indemnification
25. Separate Contracts
26. Subcontracting
27. Engineer's Authority
28. Land and Rights-of-Way
29. Guaranh
30. Arbitration
31. Taxes
1.    DEFINITIONS

1.1   Wherever  used   in  the  CONTRACT  DOCU-
MENTS, the following terms shall have the meanings
indicated which shall be applicable to both the singular
and plural thereof:

1.2   ADDENDA— Written  or  graphic  instruments  is-
sued prior to the execution of the Agreement  which
modify or  interpret the CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS,
DRAWINGS and SPECIFICATIONS.  b\ additions, de-
letions, clarifications or corrections.

1.3   BID-The offer or proposal of  the BIDDER sub-
mitted  on  the prescribed form setting forth the  prices
for the WORK to be perlormed.

1.4   BIDDER—Any person, firm or corporation sub-
mitting a BID for the WORK.

1.5   BONDS-Bid, Performance, and  Payment  Bonds
and  other  instruments  of  security, furnished by tho
CONTRACTOR and his surety in accordance  with the
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

1.6   CHANGE ORDER-A written order to the CON-
TRACTOR authorizing an addition, deletion or revision
in the  WORK  within the general scope  of the CON-
TRACT DOCUMENTS, or authorizing an adjustment in
the CONTRACT PRICE or CONTRACT TIME.

1.7   CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS-The  contract,  in-
cluding Advertisement For Bids, Information  For Bid-
ders, BID, Bid Bond, Agreement, Payment Bond, Per-
formance  Bond, NOTICE  OF AWARD,  NOTICE TO
PROCEED, CHANGE ORDER, DRAWINGS, SPECIFI-
CATIONS, and ADDENDA.

1.8   CONTRACT PRICE-The total monies payable to
the CONTRACTOR under  the terms  and conditions of
the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

1.9   CONTRACT  TIME-The  number  of  calendar
days stated  in the  CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS for the
completion of the WORK.

1.10  CONTRACTOR-The  person,  firm  or  corpora-
tion  with  whom  the OWNER has executed the  Agree-
ment.'

1.11  DRAWINGS-The   part   of   the   CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS  which  show  the  characteristics  and
scope of the WORK to  be performed and which have
been prepared or approved by the ENGINEER.
1.12  ENGINEER—The  person,  firm or  corporation
named as such in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

1.13  FIELD  ORDER-A  written  order  effecting  a
change in the WORK  not involving  an  adjustment in
(he CONTRACT PRICE or an extension of the CON-
TRACT TIME, issued by the ENGINEER to the CON-
TRACTOR during construction.

1.14  NOTICE OF AWARD-The written lolice of the
acceptance of the BID from the OWNER  tr  the success-
ful BIDDER.
1.15  NOTICE TO PROCEED-Wntten communication
issued by  the OWNER to the CONTRACTOR authoriz-
ing him to proceed with (he WORK and establishing the
date of commencement of the WORK.

1.16  OWNER—A   public  or quasi-public  body  or
authority,  corporation, association, partnership, or in-
dividual for whom the WORK is to be  performad.

1 17  PROjECT-The underlakir- 'o  be performed as
provided in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

1 18  RESIDENT  PROJECT  REPRESENTATIVE-The
authorized representative of the OWNER who is as-
signed to the PROJECT site or any part thereof.
1.19  SHOP  DRAWINGS-A11 drawings, diagrams, il-
lustrations, brochures,  schedules and other data which
are prepared by the CONTRACTOR,  a SUBCONTRAC-
TOR,  manufacturer, SUPPLIER  or  distributor, which
illustrate how specific portions of the WORK shall be
fabricated or installed

1.20  SPECIFICATIONS-A  part  of  the CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS  consisting of  written  descriptions of a
technical nature of  materials, equipment,  construction
systems, standards and workmanship.

1.21  SUBCONTRACTOR-An  individual,  firm  or
corporation  having  a  direct contract with the CON-
TRACTOR or with  any other SUBCONTRACTOR for
the performance of a part of the WORK at the site.

1.22 SUBSTANTIAL  COMPLETION-That   date  as
certified  by  the ENGINEER  when the construction of
the PROJECT or a specified part thereof is sufficiently
completed, in accordance with the CONTRACT DOCU-
MENTS,  so  that the PROJECT or specified part can be
utilized^for the purposes for which it is intended.

123 SUPPLEMENTAL  GENERAL   CONDITIONS-
 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
 FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
                                     Document No 11
                           General Conditions  Page 1  of 9
-------
Modifications  to General  Conditions  required  by a
Federal agency for participation in the PROJECT and
applied by the agency in \\ritmg prior to inclusion in
the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, or such requirements
that may be imposed by applicable state laws.

1.24  SUPPLIER —Any person or organization who sup-
plies materials or equipment for the WORK,  including
that fabricated  to a special  design,  but  who does not
perform labor at the site.
1.25  WORK —All labor necessary to produce the con-
struction required  by  the  CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS.
and all materials and  equipment incorporated or to be
incorporated in the PROJECT.
1.26  WRITTEN  NOTICE-Any notice  to any party of
th(! Agreement relative to any part of this Agreement
in writing  and considered delivered and  the service
thereof completed, when posted  by certified or regis-
tered  mail  to the said party at his last given address,
or delivered in person to  said party or his authorized
representative on the WORK.

2    ADDITIONAL  INSTRUCTIONS   AND DETAIL
     DRAWINGS

2.1  The CONTRACTOR  may be  furnished additional
instructions and detail drawings,  by the ENGINEER,
as necessary to carry out  the WORK  required by the
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
2.2  The  additional  drawings and instruction  thus
supplied will become a part of the CONTRACT DOCU-
MENTS. The CONTRACTOR shall earn  out the WORK
in accordance with the additional detail drawings and
instructions.

3.   SCHEDULES, REPORTS AND RECORDS

3.1  The CONTRACTOR  shall submit to the OWNER
such schedule of quantities  and costs, progress sched-
ules,  payrolls,  reports,  estimates,  records  and other
data where applicable as are required by the  CON-
TRACT DOCUMENTS for  the WORK to be performed.
3.2  Prior to the first  partial  payment estimate the
CONTRACTOR  shall submit  construction progress
schedules showing the order in which he proposes to
carry on the WORK,  including dales at which  he will
start the various parts of the WORK, estimated date of
completion of each part and, as applicable.
    3.2.1.   The dates  at which special detail drawings
will be required; and

    3.2.2  Respective  dates  for submission  of SHOP
DRAWINGS, the beginning of manufacture, the testing
and the installation of materials, supplies and equip-
ment.

3.3  The CONTRACTOR  shall also submit a schedule
of payments that he anticipates he will  earn during the
course of the WORK.

4.    DRAWINGS AND SPEC/F/CAT/ONS

4.1   The  intent of the DRAWINGS and SPECIFICA-
TIONS is  that  the CONTRACTOR shall furnish ah
labor,  materials,  tools, equipment, and transportation
necessary  for the  proper execution of  the  WORK in
accordance with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and all
incidental  work necessary to complete the  PROJECT
in an  acceptable manner,  ready for use. occupancy or
operation by the OWNER.
4.2   In case  of conflict between the DRAWINGS and
SPECIFICATIONS, the SPECIFICATIONS shall govern
Figure  dimensions on  DRAWINGS  shall  govern over
scale  dimensions,  and  detailed  DRAWINGS  shall
govern over general DRAWINGS.
4.3   .\ny discrepancies  found between  the DRAW-
INGS and  SPECIFICATIONS  and  site conditions or
any inconsistencies or  ambiguities in the DRAWINGS
or SPECIFICATION'S shall be immediately reported to
the LNGINEER,  in writing, who shall promptly correct
such inconsistencies  or ambiguities in writing. WORK
done by the CONTRACTOR after his discovery of such
discrepancies, inconsistencies  or ambiguities shall be
done at the CONTRACTOR'S risk.

5.   SHOP DRAWINGS
5.1  The CONTRACTOR shall provide SHOP DRAW-
INGS as may be necessary for the prosecution of the
WORK as required by  the 'CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
The ENGINEER  shall  promptly  review   all  SHOP
DRAWINGS. The ENGINEER'S approval  of  any SHOP
DRAWING shall not release  the CONTRACTOR  from
responsibility for deviations  from the  CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS. The approval of any SHOP DRAWING
which substantially deviates  from the  requirement of
the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS shall be evidenced by a
CHANGE ORDER.
5.2   When  suh'nitted  for the  ENGINEER'S  review,
SHOP DRAWL1*   S  shall bear  the CONTRACTOR'S
certification   that  he  has  reviewed,  checked  anil
approved the SHOP DRA1 "  jS and that  they are in
conlormance with the requirements of the CONTRACT
 DOCUMENTS.

3.3   Portions of the WORK -equiring a SHOP DRAW-
 ING  or  sample submissior  shall  not  begin until the
 SHOP DRAWING or submi. iion has been approved by
 the  ENGINEER  A  copy ol  each approved  SHOP
 DRAWING and  each approved sample shall be kept in
 good order by the CONTRA. Vl'OR at the  site and shall
 be available  to the ENGINEER.
 6    MA7'ERIALS. SERVICES AND FACILITIES

 H.I   It is understood that, ex<" pt as otherwise specifi-
 cally  stated in  the  CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, (he
 CONTRACTOR shall provide and pay for all materials,
 labor, tools, equipment, water, light, power, transpor-
 tation,  supervision,  temporary  construction   of  any
 nature,  and all other  services and  facilities of any
 nature whatsoever necessary to execute, complete, and
 deliver the WORK within the specified lime.
 fi.2   Materials and equipment shall be so stored as to
 insure  the  preservation of their quality and lilness for
 the WORK. Stored materials and equipment  to be in-
 corporated in the WORK shall be located so as to facili-
 tate prompt inspection.
 fi.3   Manufactured articles, materials and  equipment
 shall  be  applied, installed, connected, erected,  used.
 cleaned and conditioned as directed by the manufac-
 turer.
 6.4   Materials, supplies and  equipment shall he in
 accordance with samples submitted by the CONTRAC-
 TOR and approved by the ENGINEER."
 6.5   Materials, supplies or equipment to be incorpor-
 ated into the  WORK shall not  be  purchased bv the
 Document No. 11
 General Conditions Page 2 of 9
-------
CONTRACTOR or the SUBCONTRACTOR subject lo a
chattel mortgage or under a conditional sale contract or
other agreement by which an interest is retained by the
seller.
7.
INSPECTION AND TESTING
7.1   All materials and equipment used in the construc-
tion of the PROJECT shall  be subject lo adequate in-
spection and  testing in accordance with generally ac-
cepted standards,  as required and defined in the CON-
TRACT DOCUMENTS.
7.2   The OWNER shall provide all inspection and test-
ing  services not required by the CONTRACT DOCU-
MENTS.
7.3   The CONTRACTOR shall provide at his expense
the  testing and  inspection  services  required  by  the
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
7.4   If the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, laws, ordi-
nances, rules, regulations  or  orders of any  public
authority having  jurisdiction  require any  WORK  to
specifically be inspected, tested, or approved by some-
one other than the CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR
will give the ENGINEER timely notice of  readiness.
The CONTRACTOR will then furnish the ENGINEER
the  required  certificates of inspection, testing or  ap-
proval,
7.5   Inspections,  tests or  approvals  by the engineer
or others  shall not relieve the CONTRACTOR from
his  obligations to perform  the  WORK in accordance
with  the  requirements  of  the  CONTRACT DOCU-
MENTS.
7.6   The  ENGINEER and  his representatives  will at
all  times  have  access  lo  the WORK. In  addition,
authorized  representatives  and  agents of any  partici-
pating Federal or state  agency shall be permitted lo
inspect all work, materials, payrolls, records of per-
sonnel, invoices of materials, and other relevant data
and records. The CONTRACTOR  will provide  proper
facilities for such access and observation of the WORK
and also for any inspection, or testing thereof.
7.7   If any WORK  is covered contrary to the  written
instructions of the ENGINEER it must, if requested by
the  ENGINEER, be  uncovered for his observation and
replaced al the CONTRACTOR'S expense.
7.8   If the  ENGINEER  considers it  necessary or ad-
visable that covered WORK be  inspected or  tested by
others, the CONTRACTOR, at the ENGINEER'S request,
will uncover, expose or otherwise make available for
observation, inspection or  testing as the ENGINEER
may require, that portion  of the  WORK in  question,
furnishing  all necessary labor, materials,  tools, and
equipment. If it is found that such WORK is defective,
the  CONTRACTOR  will bear  all the  expenses of such
uncovering,  exposure,  observation,   inspection and
testing and of satisfactory reconstruction. If,  however,
such WORK  is not  found  to  be defective,  the CON-
TRACTOR will be  allowed an  increase in  the CON-
TRACT PRICE or  an  extension  of  the  CONTRACT
TIME, or both, directly attributable to such uncovering,
exposure,  observation, inspection,  testing and  recon-
struction and an  appropriate CHANGE ORDER shall
be issued.
8.   SUBST/TUT/ONS

8.1   Whenever  a  material, article or piece of equip-
ment  is identified on  (he DRAWINGS or SPECIFICA-
TIONS by reference to brand name or catalogue num-
ber, it shall be understood  that this is  referenced lor
the purpose of defining the  performance or other sali-
ent requirements and thai  other  product!)  of  equal
capacities,  quality  and function  shall be  considered.
The CONTRACTOR may recommend the  substitution
of a  material, article,  or piece of equipment of equal
substance and function for  those referred to in the
CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS  by  reference lo  brand
name or catalogue number, and if, in the opinion of the
ENGINEER, such material,  article, or piece of equip-
ment  is of  equal substance and function lo that speci-
fied, the ENGINEER may approve its substitution and
use by the  CONTRACTOR.  Any cost  differential shall
be deductible from the CONTRACT PRICE  and the
CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS  shall  be   appropriately
modified b\  CHANGE ORDER. The CONTRACTOR
warrants that if substitutes are approved, no  major
changes in  the function or general design of the PROJ-
ECT will result. Incidental changes or extra component
parts  required to accommodate the substitute  will  be
made by the CONTRACTOR without a  change in the
CONTRACT PRICE or  CONTRACT TIME.
                                                  9.
                                                       PATENTS
                                                  9.1   The CONTRACTOR  shall  pay  all  applicable-
                                                  royalties and license fees. He shall defend all suits or
                                                  claims for infringement of any patent rights and save
                                                  the OWNER harmless from loss  on account thereof,
                                                  except that  the OWNER shall  be responsible for any
                                                  such  loss when a particular process,  design, or the
                                                  product of a particular manufacturer or manufacturers
                                                  is specified, however if the CONTRACTOR  has reason
                                                  lo believe that the design, process or product specified
                                                  is an  infringement of a patent, he shall be responsible
                                                  for such loss unless  he promptly gives such informa-
                                                  tion to the ENGINEER.

                                                  10.    SURVEYS, PERMITS, REGULATIONS
                                                  10.1  The OWNER shall  furnish  all boundary surveys
                                                  and establish all base lines  for locating the principal
                                                  component parts of the WORK together with a suitable
                                                  number  of  bench marks adjacent  to  the  WORK as
                                                  shown.in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. From the in-
                                                  formation provided by the OWNER, unless otherwise
                                                  specified in the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, the CON-
                                                  TRACTOR shall develop and make all detail surveys
                                                  needed for  construction such  as slope  stakes,  batter
                                                  boards,  stakes  for pile  locations and other  working
                                                  points, lines, elevations and cut sheets.
                                                  10.2  The  CONTRACTOR  shall  carefully preserve
                                                  bench marks, reference points and stakes and, in case
                                                  of  willful or careless destruction, he shall be charged
                                                  with the resulting expense and shall be responsible for
                                                  any mistakes thai may be caused by Iheir unnecessary
                                                  loss or disturbance.

                                                  10.3  Permits  and  licenses  of  a  temporary  nature
                                                  necessary for  the  prosecution  of the WORK shall be
                                                  secured  and 'paid for by the  CONTRACTOR unless
                                                  otherwise stated  in  the  SUPPLEMENTAL  GENERAL
                                                  CONDITIONS.  Permits,  licenses  and  easements for
                                                  permanent structures or permanent changes  in existing
                                                  facilities shall be secured and paid for by the OWNER,
                                                  unless otherwise specified. The CONTRACTOR  shall
                                                  give all notices and comply with all laws, ordinances,
                                                  rules  and regulations  bearing on the conduct of the
                                                  WORK as drawn and specified. If the CONTRACTOR
                                                                                              Document No 11
                                                                                    General Conditions Page 3 of 9
-------
observes  that the CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS  are  at
variance therewith, he shall promptly notify (he ENGI-
NEER in  writing,  and any necessary changes shall he
adjusted as provided  in Section 13. CHANGES IN THE
WORK.

11.   PROTECT/ON OF WORK, PROPERTY AND
     PERSONS
11.1  The  CONTRACTOR  will  be  responsible  for
initiating,  maintaining and supervising all safety  pre-
cautions and programs in connection with the WORK.
He  will take  all necessary  precautions for the safety
of. and will provide the necessary protection to prevent
damage, injury or loss to all employees on the  WORK
and other  persons who may be affected thereby, all the
WORK and all materials or equipment to be  incorpor-
ated therein, whether in storage on or off the site, and
other property at the site or adjacent thereto,  includ-
ing  trees,  shrubs, lawns,  walks, pavements, roadways,
structures and utilities not designated for  removal, relo-
cation or replacement in the course of construction.

11.2  The  CONTRACTOR will comply with  all appli-
cable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and  orders of
any public body having jurisdiction. He will  erect and
maintain,  as required by the conditions and progress of
the  WORK,  all  necessary safeguards for  safety and
protection. He will notify owners of adjacent utilities
when prosecution of  the  WORK may affect them  The
CONTRACTOR will  remedy all damage, injury  or loss
to  any  property caused,  directly  or  indirectly,  in
whole or in part, by the CONTRACTOR, any SUBCON-
TRACTOR or anyone directly or  indirectly   employed
by any of them or anyone for  whose acts any of them
be  liable, except damage or loss  attributable to  the
fault of the  CONTRACT DOCUMENTS  or to the acts
or  omissions of  the  OWNER or  the ENGINEER  or
anyone employed by  either  of them or anyone for
whose acts  either of  them may be  liable, and  not
attributable,  directly or indirectly,  in  whole or  in
part, to the fault or negligence of the CONTRACTOR.
11.3  In emergencies affecting the safety of persons or
the WORK or properly at the site or adjacent  thereto,
the  CONTRACTOR,  without  special  instruction  or
authorization from the  ENGINEER or  OWNER, shall
act to prevent  threatened damage,  injury or loss. He
will give the ENGINEER prompt WRITTEN NOTICE of
any significant changes  in  the  WORK  or  deviations
from the  CONTRACT DOCUMENTS caused thereby,
and a CHANGE ORDER shall thereupon be issued cov-
ering the changes and deviations involved.
12.    SUPERVISION BY CONTRACTOR
12.1  The CONTRACTOR will supervise  and  direct the
WORK. He will be solely responsible for the  meuns,
methods,  techniques,  sequences  and  procedures  of
construction.  The CONTRACTOR  will  employ and
maintain on the WORK a qualified supervisor or super-
intendent who shall have been designated in writing by
the CONTRACTOR as the CONTRACTOR'S  represen-
 ative at the site. The supervisor shall have lull authori-
ty to a,ct  on  behalf of the CONTRACTOR and all com-
munications given to  the supervisor shall be us  binding
as if given to the CONTRACTOR  The supervisor shall
be  present on the site at all times as required to per-
form adequate  supervision and  coordination of the
WORK.
 13.   CHANGES IN THE WORK
 13 1  The OWNER may at any time, as the need arises,
order changes within the scope of the WORK without
invalidating the Agreement. If such changes increase or
decrease  the  amount  due under  the  CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS, or in the lime required for  performance
of the WORK, an equitable adjustment shall be author-
ized by CHANGE ORDER.
13.2  The  ENGINEER, also, may at any time, by issuing
a FIELD ORDER, make changes in  the details of the
WORK.  The  CONTRACTOR shall  proceed with the
performance  of any changes in the WORK so ordered
by the ENGINEER unless  the CONTRACTOR believes
that  such  FIELD ORDER  entitles him to  a change in
CONTRACT PRICE or  TIME, or both, in  which event
he shall give the ENGINEER WRITTEN NOTICE there-
of within seven (7)  days after the receipt of the ordered
change.  Thereafter the  CONTRACTOR shall document
the  basis  for the  change  in  CONTRACT PRICE or
TIME within  thirty (30) days. The CONTRACTOR shall
not execute such changes pending  the receipt of an
executed CHANGE ORDER or  further instruction  from
the OWNER.

14.   CHANGES IN CONTRACT PRICE

14.1  The  CONTRACT  PRICE may be changed only by
a CHANGE ORDER.  The value of any WORK covered
by a CHANGE ORDER or of any claim  for increase or
decrease in the CONTRACT PRICE shall be determined
by one or more of the  following methods in the order
of precedence listed below
  (a) Unit prices previously approved.
  (b| An agreed lump sum.
  (c|  The actual cost for  labor, direct  overhead, ma-
terials, supplies, equipment, and other services neces-
sary to  complete the work. In addition there shall be
added an  amount to  be agreed upon but not to exceed
fifteen (15] percent of  the actual cost of the WORK to
cover the cost of general overhead and profit.

15    TIME  FOR  COMPLETION AND LIQUIDATED
      DAMAGES
15.1  The date of  beginning and the time for comple-
tion of the WORK  are essential conditions of the CON-
TRACT DOCUMENTS and the WORK embraced shall
be commenced on a  dale  specified in the NOTICE TO
PROCEED.
15.2  The CONTRACTOR  will  proceed with the WORK
at such  rale of progress to insure full completion  with-
in  the CONTRACT  TIME. It  is expressly  understood
and agreed,  by and  between  the CONTRACTOR and
the OWNER, that  the CONTRACT TIME for the com-
pletion  of the WORK described herein  is a reasonable
time, taking  into  consideration the average climatic
and economic conditions  and  other factors prevailing
in the locality of the WORK.

15.3  If the CONTRACTOR shall fail to  complete the
WORK  within the CONTRACT TIME, or extension of
time granted by the  OWNER, then the CONTRACTOR
will pay to the OWNER the amount for liquidated dam-
ages as specified in the HID for each calendar day that
the  CONTRACTOR shall  be in default after the  lime
stipulated in  the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

15.4  The CONTRACTOR shall not be charged  with
liquidated damages or  any excess cost when the  delay
in  completion of the WORK is due to the  following,
and the CONTRACTOR has promptly given WRITTEN
NOTICE of such delay to the OWNERor ENGINEER.
     15.4.1  To  any preference,  priority  or  allocation
 Document No 11
 Genera! Conditions' Page 4 ot 9
-------
order duly issued by the OWNER.

    15.4.2  To  unforeseeable causes  beyond the con-
trol and without the fault or negligence of the CON-
TRACTOR, including but not restricted to, acts of God,
or of the public enemy, acts of the  OWNER,  acts of
another CONTRACTOR in the  performance  of a con-
tract with  the OWNER, fires, floods,  epidemics, quar-
antine  restrictions,  strikes, freight  embargoes, and
abnormal and unforeseeable weather; and
    15.4.3  To   any  delays of  SUBCONTRACTORS
occasioned  by  any of the  causes specified in para-
graphs 15.4.1 and 15.4.2 of this article.

16.   CORRECTION OF WORK

16.1  The CONTRACTOR shall promptly remove from
the premises all WORK rejected by the ENGINEER for
failure to comply with the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS,
whether incorporated  in the construction  or not, and
the  CONTRACTOR shall  promptly  replace  and re-
execute the WORK in accordance with the CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS and without expense to the OWNER
and  shall bear the expense  of making good all WORK
of other CONTRACTORS  destroyed or damaged  by
such removal or replacement.

16.2  All removal  and replacement  WORK shall  be
done at the CONTRACTOR'S  expense. If the CON-
TRACTOR  does not  take action  to  remove such re-
jected  WORK within  ten  (10) days after receipt  of
WRITTEN  NOTICE,  the  OWNER "may  remove such
WORK and  ston;  (he materials at (he expense of the
CONTRACTOR.

17.   SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

17.1  The  CONTRACTOR shall promptly,  and before
such conditions are disturbed,  except in the event of
an  emergency,  notify  the  OWNER  by  WRITTEN
NOTICE of:

    17.1.1  Subsurface or latent physical conditions at
the site differing materially from those indicated in the
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS;  or

    17.1.2  Unknown  physical conditions  at the site,
of an unusual nature, differing materially from  those
ordinarily  encountered and generally  recognized  as
inherent in WORK of the character provided  for in the
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

17.2  The OWNER shall  promptly investigate the con-
ditions, and if he finds  that such  conditions  do  so
materially differ and cause an increase or  decrease in
the cost of,  or  in the time required  for, performance
of the  WORK, an,equitable adjustment shall be made
and  the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS shall be modified
by a CHANGE  ORDER. Any claim of the  CONTRAC-
TOR for adjustment hereunder shall not  be allowed
unless  he has given the required  WRITTEN  NOTICE;
provided that the OWNER may, if he determines the
facts so justify, consider and  adjust any such claims
asserted before the date of final payment.

18.   SUSPENSION OF WORK, TERM/NAT/ON AND
     DELAY

18.1  The  OWNER may suspend the WORK  or any
portion thereof for a period of not more  than ninety
days or such further time as agreed upon by  the CON-
TRACTOR, by WRITTEN NOTICE to the CONTRACT-
OR and the ENGINEER which notice shall  fix the date
on which WORK shall be resumed. The CONTRACTOR
will  resume that  WORK on the date so fixed  The
CONTRACTOR will  be allowed an  increase in the
CONTRACT PRICE or an extension of the CONTRACT
TIME, or both, directly attributable to any suspension.

18.2  If  the CONTRACTOR  is  adjudged  a  bankrupt
or insolvent, or if he makes  a general assignment for
the benefit  of his creditors, or if a trustee or receiver is
appointed  for  the  CONTRACTOR  or  for any o( his
property, or if  he files  a petition to take  advantage of
any debtor's act, or to reorganize under the bankruptcy
or applicable laws, or if he repeatedly fails  to supply
sufficient skilled  workmen or  suitable  materials  or
equipment,  or  if he  repeatedly  fails  to make prompt
payments to SUBCONTRACTORS or for labor, materi-
als or equipment or if he disregards laws, ordinances,
rules, regulations or orders of any public body having
jurisdiction of the WORK or if he disregards the author-
ity of the ENGINEER, or if he otherwise violates any
provision of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS,  then the
OWNER may,  without prejudice to any other right or
remedy  and after giving the CONTRACTOR and his
surety a minimum  of ten (10) days  from  delivery of a
WRITTEN NOTICE, terminate the services of the CON-
TRACTOR  and take possession of the  PRO)ECT and of
all materials,  equipment, tools, construction equip-
ment and machinery thereon owned by the CONTRAC-
TOR, and  finish the WORK by whatever method  he
may deem  expedient. In such case the CONTRACTOR
shall not be entitled to receive any  further  payment
until the WORK  is finished.  If the unpaid balance of
the CONTRACT PRICE exceeds (he direct and indirect
costs of  completing the  PROJECT, including compensa-
tion  for additional professional services,  such excess
SHALL BE  PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR. If such costs
exceed such unpaid balance, the CONTRACTOR will
pay  the  difference to the OWNER. Such costs incurred
by the OWNER will be determined by the ENGINEER
and incorporated in a CHANGE ORDER.

18.3  Where the  CONTRACTOR'S services have been
so terminated  by the OWNER,  said termination shall
not affect any right of  the OWNER against  the CON-
TRACTOR  then existing or which  may thereafter  ac-
crue. Any  retention or  payment  of  monies by the
OWNER due the  CONTRACTOR will not release (he
CONTRACTOR from compliance with the CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS.

18.4  After  ten (10) days from delivery of a WRITTEN
NOTICE to the CONTRACTOR and  the ENGINEER.
the OWNER may, without cause and without  prejudice
to any  other right or  remedy,  elect to  abandon the
PROJECT  and terminate the  Contract. In such  case,
the CONTRACTOR shall be paid for all  WORK exe-
cuted and   any  expense  sustained  plus reasonable
profit.

18.5  If, through no act  or fault of the CONTRACTOR.
the WORK  is  suspended for  a  period of more  than
ninety (90)  days by the OWNER or under an  order of
court or other public  authority, or  the  ENGINEER
fails to  act  on any request for payment  within thirty
(30)  days after it is submitted, or the  OWNER fails to
pay the  CONTRACTOR substantially the sum  approved
by the  ENGINEER or  awarded by arbitrators within
thirty (30)  days  of  its  approval  and  presentation,
then the CONTRACTOR may, after ten (10) days from
delivery of a WRITTEN NOTICE to the  OWNER and
the  ENGINEER,  terminate the  CONTRACT  and re-
cover from the OWNER payment  for all WORK oxe-
                                                                                            Document No  11
                                                                                   General Conditions Page 5 of 9
-------
cuted and all expenses sustained. In addition and in
lieu of terminating the CONTRACT,  if the ENGINEER
has failed to  act on a request for payment or if the
OWNER has failed to make any payment as aforesaid,
the CONTRACTOR may upon  ten  (10)  days  written
notice  to the OWNER  and  the  ENGINEER stop the
WORK until he has been paid all amounts then due, in
which  event  and upon resumption  of  the  WORK,
CHANGE ORDERS shall be  issued  for  adjusting the
CONTRACT  PRICE  or  extending  the  CONTRACT
TIME or both to compensate for the costs and delays
attributable to the stoppage of the WORK.

18.6  If the performance of  all  or any portion of the
WORK is suspended,  delayed, or interrupted as  a re-
sult of a failure of  the OWNER  or  ENGINEER to act
within the time specified in  the CONTRACT  DOCU-
MENTS, or if no time is specified, within a reasonable
time,  an  adjustment in the CONTRACT  PRICE or an
extension of the CONTRACT TIME, or both, shall be
made by CHANGE ORDER to compensate the CON-
TRACTOR for the costs and delays necessarily caused
by the failure of the OWNER or ENGINEER.

19. PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR
19.1  At least ten (10) days before each  progress pay-
ment falls due (but not more often than once a month),
the CONTRACTOR will submit to the ENGINEER a par-
tial payment estimate  filled out and signed by the CON-
TRACTOR covering the WORK performed during the
period covered  by  the partial payment  estimate and
supported by such data as the ENGINEER may reason-
ably require.  If payment is  requested on the  basis of
materials  and  equipment not  incorporated  in the
WORK but delivered and suitably stored  at or near the
site,  the partial payment estimate shall also be accom-
panied by  such  supporting data, satisfactory to the
OWNER, as will establish the OWNER'S title to the ma-
terial and equipment and protect his  interest  therein,
including applicable insurance. The ENGINEER will,
within ten (10) days after receipt of each partial pay-
ment estimate, either indicate in writing his approval of
payment and present the  partial payment estimate to
the OWNER, or return the partial payment estimate to
the CONTRACTOR indicating in writing his reasons for
refusing  to approve  payment. In the  latter case,  the
CONTRACTOR  may  make  the  necessary corrections
and resubmit the partial payment estimate. The OWN-
ER will, within ten  (10) days  of presentation to him of
an approved partial payment estimate, pay the CON-
TRACTOR a progress payment on the basis of the ap-
proved partial payment estimate. The OWNER shall re-
tain ten (10) percent of the amount of each payment un-
til final completion and acceptance of all work covered
by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The OWNER at any
time, however,  after  fifty (50) percent of the WORK
has been completed, if he finds  that satisfactory prog-
ress  is being made,  shall reduce retainage to five (5'/v)
percent on the current and remaining estimates. When
the WORK is substantially  complete (operational or
beneficial occupancy),  the retained amount  may be
further reduced  below five  (5)  percent  to only that
amount necessary to assure completion. On completion
and  acceptance of a  part  of  the WORK  on which the
price is stated separately in the CONTRACT DOCU-
MENTS, payment may be made in  full, including re-
tained percentages, less authorized deductions.

19.2   The request for payment  may  also include an
allowance for the  cost of such major materials and
equipment which are suitably stored either at or near
the site.
19.3' Prior  to  SUBSTANTIAL  COMPLETION,   the,
OWNER, with the approval of the ENGINEER and with
the concurrence  of the CONTRACTOR, may use any
completed or substantially completed portions of the
WORK. Such use shall not constitute an acceptance p'
such portions of the WORK.
19.4  The OWNER shall have the right to enter  the
premises for the purpose of doing work not covered by
the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. This provision shall
not be construed as relieving the CONTRACTOR of the
sole  responsibility  for the care and protection of  the
WORK, or the  restoration of any damaged WORK ex-
cept  such as may be caused by agents  or employees of
the OWNER.
19.5  Upon completion and acceptance of  the WORK,
the ENGINEER shall issue a certificate attached to the
final payment request that  the  WORK  has been ac-
cepted by him under the conditions of the CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS. The entire balance found to be due the
CONTRACTOR, including the retained percentages, but
except such sums as may be lawfully retained by the
OWNER, shall be paid  to  the CONTRACTOR within
thirty (30) days of completion and  acceptance of the
WORK.

 19.6  The CONTRACTOR will indemnify and save the
 OWNER  or  the OWNER'S agents  harmless from all
 claims  growing  out of  the lawful  demands of SUB-
 CONTRACTORS, laborers,  workmen, mechanics, ma-
 terialmen, and  furnishers  of  machinery  and  parts
 thereof, equipment, tools, and all supplies, incurred  in
 the furtherance of the performance of the WORK. The
 CONTRACTOR shall, at the OWNER'S request, furnish
 satisfactory evidence that all obligations of  the nature
 designated  above have been  paid,  discharged,  or
 waived. If the CONTRACTOR fails to do so the OWN-
 ER  may,  after  having  notified the CONTRACTOR,
 either  pay  unpaid bills or  withhold from  the  CON-
 TRACTOR'S unpaid compensation  a sum  of  money
 deemed reasonably sufficient to pay any  and all such
 lawful  claims until satisfactory evidence  is furnished
 that all liabilities have been fully discharged  where-
 upon payment to the CONTRACTOR shall be resumed,
 in accordance  with  the  terms of  the  CONTRACT
 DOCUMENTS, but in no event  shall the provisions  of
 this sentence be construed to impose any  obligations
 upon  the  OWNER  to  either the CONTRACTOR, his
 Surety,  or  any  third  party. In paying  any  unpaid
 bills of the CONTRACTOR, any payment so made  by
 the OWNER  shall be considered  as a  payment made
 under  the CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS by the OWNER
 to the CONTRACTOR  and  the OWNER  shall not  be
 liable  to the CONTRACTOR for any  such payments
 made in good faith.


 19.7  If the OWNER  fails to make payment thirty (30)
 days after approval by  the  ENGINEER, in addition  to
 other remedies available to the CONTRACTOR, there
 shall be  added  to each such payment  interest  at the
 maximum legal rate commencing on the first day after
 said payment is due  and continuing until  the payment
 is received by the CONTRACTOR.
Document No. 11
General Conditions Page 6 of 9
-------
20.   ACCEPTANCE Of FINAL PA YMENT AS
     RELEASE

20.1  The acceptance by  the  CONTRACTOR of final
payment shall be and shall operate as a  release to the
OWNER of all claims and all liability to the CONTRAC-
TOR other than claims in stated amounts as may  be
specifically  excepted by  (he  CONTRACTOR  for  all
things clone or furnished in connection with this WORK
and for  every act and neglect of the OWNER and others
relating to or arising out of this WORK  Any payment,
however,  final  or   otherwise, shall  not release the
CONTRACTOR  or  his  sureties from any obligations
under the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS or'the Perform-
ance BOND and Payment BONDS.
21    INSURANCE

21.1   The CONTRACTOR shall purchase and  maintain
such insurance as will protect him from claims set forth
below which may arise out of or result from the CON-
TRACTOR'S execution of the WORK, whether such ex-
ecution be  by himself or by  any SUBCONTRACTOR
or by  anyone directly or indirectly  employed by any
of them, or  by anyone for whose acts an> ot them may
be liable:
operations   under  the  CONTRACT   DOCUMENTS.
whether  such  operations  be In  hmisell  01   b\  any
SUBCONTRACTOR under him, or anyone dnecllv or
mdiiectly  employed  by  the  CONTRACTOR  01  liy  a
SUBCONTRACTOR  under  him.  Insuiance  shall' be
written with a limit of liability ol not less than S500.000
for all damages arising out ot bodily  mjurx.  including
death, at  any time resulting  therefrom, .sustained In
any  one  person in any  one  accident,  and a limn ol
liability of  not  less  than  8500,000 aggregate loi  am
such damages sustained by two or more persons in any
one  accident  Insurance  shall be  written with a limit
of liability of not less than  $200,000 for all  property
damage sustained  by  any one person m any  one acci-
dent; and a limit  of liability  of not less than $200,000
aggregate  for  any  such  damage sustained by  two or
more persons in any one accident

    21 3 2   The  CONTRACTOR  shall  acquire  and
maintain,  if applicable.  Fire  and Extended  Coverage
insurance  upon (he  PROJECT  to the lull  insurable
value thereof  for the  benefit  of the OWNER,  the CON-
TRACTOR, and SUBCONTRACTORS as their  interest
may appear. This provision shall in no way release the
CONTRACTOR  or CONTRACTOR'S siiietv from obli-
gations under the  CONTRACT  DOCUMENTS  to fully
complete the PROJECT
    21 1 1  Claims  under  workmen's   compensation.
disabilit',  benefit  and other similar employee benelil
acts;

    21.1.2  Claims loi  damages  because  nl  bodily
 injury, occupational  sickness or disease,  or death ol
 his employees;

    21 1.3  Claims for damages  because of bodily  in-
 jury, sickness or disease, or death  of any  person other
 than  his employees.

     21 1.4   Claims for damages  insured by usual  per-
 sonal injury liability coverage which are  sustained (1)
 by any person as a result of an  offense directly or in-
 directly  related  to the employment ol  such person by
 the CONTRACTOR, or (2) by any other  person, and

     21.1.5   Claims for damages because of injury to or
 destruction of tangible property, me,hiding  loss  of  use
 resulting therefrom.

 21.2   Certificates of  Insurance acceptable  to the OWN-
 ER shall be filed with the OWNER prior to commence-
 ment of the WORK.  These Certificates shall contain a
 provision  (hal coverages afforded under  (he policies
 will  nol be  cancelled unless at  least fifteen (15| days
 prior WRITTEN NOTICE has been given  to the OWN-
 ER.

 21.3   The CONTRACTOR shall  procure and maintain,
 at his own expense,  during the  CONTRACT TIME, b-
 abihty insurance as hereinafter specified,

     21.3.1   CONTRACTOR'S General  Public  Liability
 and  Properly   Damage  Insurance including  vehicle
 coverage issued  to the  CONTRACTOR and protecting
 him  from  all claims lor personal  injury,  including
 death, and all chums  for destruction ol or damage to
 properly,  arising out  of or in  connection  with  anv
 21 4  The CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain,
 at his own  expense,  during  the CONTRACT TIME, in
 accordance  with  the provisions  ol  the  laws  ol  the
 stale  in  which  the  work  is  performed,  Workmen's
 Compensation    Insurance,   including    IK.ciipation.il
 disease provisions, loi  all ol his employees at the silo
 ol  the PROJECT and m  case  any  woik  is sublet, the
 CONTRACTOR shall require such  SUBCONTRACTOR
 similarly  to provide  Workmen's Compensation  Insur-
 ance,  including occupational disease provisions lor all
 of  the  hitler's employees unless  such employees are
 covered by  the protection allorded by the CONTRAC-
 TOR.  In case any class ol employees engaged in hax-
 ardous work under  this  contract  at the  site  ol  the
 PROJECT is not protected under Workmen's  Compen-
 sation statute, the CONTRACTOR shall  provide,  and
 shall cause each SUBCONTRACTOR to  provide, ade-
 quate and suitable insurance lor  the protection  of his
 employees nol otherwise protected

 21.5  The CONTRACTOR shall secure, il  applicable,
 "All Risk" type Builder's Risk  Insurance  for WORK to
 be  performed   Unless  specifically  authori/ed by  I he
 OWNER, the amount of such  insurance shall not  be
 less than the CONTRAC'I  PRICE  totaled in  ihe HID.
 The policy  shall covet  not  less than the  losses due lo
 fire,  explosion,  hail, lightning,  vandalism, malicious
 mischief, wind, collapse,  not, aircialt, and smoke dur-
 ing  Ihe  CONTRACT TIME, and   until  the WORK is
 accepted  by the OWNER The  policy shall name  as the
 insured  the CONTRACTOR, the ENGINEER, and the
 OWNER
 22.    CONTRACT SECURITY
 221  The CONTRACTOR  shall within  ten  (10) days
 after the receipt ol  the  NOTICE OE AWARD furnish
 Ihe OWNER  with  a  Performance Bond and  a  Payment
 Bond in penal sums equal  lo Ihe amount of the CON-
 TRACT PRICE,  conditioned upon  Ihe perf'oimance In
                                                                                                 Document No 11
                                                                                       General Conditions Page 7 ol 9
-------
the CONTRACTOR of  all undertakings, covenants,
terms, conditions and  agreements of the CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS, and upon the prompt payment by the
CONTRACTOR to  all  persons  supplying labor and
materials in the prosecution 6f the" WORK pfo'vided b'y
the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. Such BONDS shall be
executed by the CONTRACTOR and a corporate bond-
ing company   licensed  to  transact  such business  in
the state in which the WORK is to be performed and
named on the current  list of  "Surety Companies Ac-
ceptable on Federal Bonds" as published in the Treas-
ury Department Circular Number 570. The expense of
these BONDS shall be borne by the CONTRACTOR.
If at any time a surety on any such BOND is declared
a bankrupt or loses its right to do business in the state
in which the  WORK is  to be performed  or is removed
from the list of Surety Companies accepted on Federal
BONDS, CONTRACTOR shall  within  ten (10)  days
after notice from the OWNER to do so, substitute an
acceptable BOND (or  BONDS) in such  form and sum
and signed by such other surety or sureties as may be
satisfactory to the  OWNER. The  premiums  on such
BOND shall be paid by the CONTRACTOR. No further
payments shall be deemed due nor shall be made until
the new surety or sureties shall  have furnished  an
acceptable BOND to the OWNER.
23.  ASSIGNMENTS
23.1 Neither  the  CONTRACTOR  nor  the  OWNER
shall sell, transfer, assign or otherwise  dispose of the
Contract or any portion thereof, or of his right, title or
interest therein, or his  obligations thereunder, without
written consent of the other party.

24.  INDEMNIFICATION

24.1 The CONTRACTOR  will indemnify  and hold
harmless  the OWNER  and the  ENGINEER  and their
agents and employees from  and  against all claims,
damages,  losses and  expenses  including  attorney's
fees arising out of  or  resulting from the performance
of the WORK, provided that any such claims, damage,
loss or  expense is  attributable  to bodily injury, sick-
ness, disease  or death, or to injury to or destruction of
tangible  property including the loss of use  resulting
therefrom; and is caused in whole or in part by any
negligent or willful act or omission of the CONTRAC-
TOR, and SUBCONTRACTOR, anyone  directly or in-
directly employed by any of them or anyone for whose
acts any of them may be liable.

24.2 In any and all claims  against the OWNER or the
ENGINEER,  or any of their agents or  employees, by
any employee of the  CONTRACTOR,  any SUBCON-
TRACTOR, anyone directly  or  indirectly  employed
by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them
may be liable, the  indemnification obligation shall not
be limited in  any way by any  limitation on the amount
or  type of damages, compensation or benefits payable
by or for the CONTRACTOR or any SUBCONTRAC-
TOR  under  workmen's compensation  acts, disability
benefit acts or other employee benefits acts.

24.3 The obligation of the  CONTRACTOR under this
paragraph shall not  extend  to  the  liability of the
ENGINEER, his agents or employees arising out of the
preparation or approval of maps,  DRAWINGS, opini-
ons, reports,  surveys. CHANGE ORDERS, designs or
SPECIFICATIONS.

25.  SEPARATE CONTRACTS
25.1 The OWNER reserves the right to let other con-
Document No. 11
General Conditions: Page 8 of 9
tracts in connection with  this PROJECT. The CON-
TRACTOR shall afford other CONTRACTORS reason-
able opportunity for  the  introduction  and storage of
their materials and the execution of  their WORK, and
shall properly connect and coordinate his WORK with
th'jirs. If the proper execution or results of any part of
the CONTRACTOR'S WORK depends upon the WORK
of any other CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR shall
inspect  and promptly report  to the ENGINEER any
defects  in such WORK that render  it unsuitable  for
such proper execution and results.
25.2 The OWNER may perform additional WORK re-
lated to the PROJECT by  himself, or he may let other
contracts containing provisions similar to these. The
CONTRACTOR will afford  the other CONTRACTORS
who are parties to such  Contracts (or  the OWNER, if
he  is performing  the additional WORK himself), rea-
sonable opportunity for  the introduction and storage
of  materials  and  equipment  and  the  execution of
WORK,  and shall  properly connect and coordinate his
WORK with theirs.
25.3 If  the performance of additional WORK by other
CONTRACTORS or the  OWNER is  not noted in  the
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS prior to the execution of
the CONTRACT, written notice thereof shall be given
to the CONTRACTOR prior to starting any such addi-
tional WORK.  If the CONTRACTOR believes that  the
performance of such additional WORK  by the OWNER
or others involves him in additional expense or entities
him to an extension of the CONTRACT TIME, ho may
make a  claim  therefor as provided in  Sections 14 and
15.

26.   SUBCONTRACTING
26.1 The CONTRACTOR  may utilize  the services of
specialty SUBCONTRACTORS on those  parts of  the
WORK  which, under  normal contracting  practices,  are
performed by specialty SUBCONTRACTORS.
26.2 The CONTRACTOR shall not  award WORK to
SUBCONTRACTOR(s), in excess of fifty (501/.) percent
of  the  CONTRACT PRICE, without  prior written  ap-
proval of the OWNER.
26.3 The CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible to
the  OWNER  for  the  acts  and omissions of  his SUB-
CONTRACTORS,  and of persons either directly  or in-
directly employed by them, as he is for  the acts  and
omissions of persons directly employed  by him.
26.4 The CONTRACTOR shall cause appropriate pro-
visions  to be inserted in all subcontracts relative to the
WORK  to bind SUBCONTRACTORS  to the CONTRAC-
TOR by the terms of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
insofar  as applicable to the WORK of  SUBCONTRAC-
TORS and to give the CONTRACTOR  the same power
as  regards  terminating any  subcontract that the OWN-
ER may exercise  over the  CONTRACTOR under  any
provision of the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

26.5 Nothing  contained  in this CONTRACT shall  cre-
ate  any contractual relation  between any  SUBCON-
TRACTOR and the OWNER.

27.  ENGINEER'S AUTHORITY
27.1 The ENGINEER shall act as the OWNER'S repre-
sentative during the construction period. He shall de-
cide questions which may  arise as to  quality and ac-
ceptability of materials  furnished  and  WORK per-
formed. He shall interpret the intent of  the CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS  in a  fair and unbiased  manner.  The
-------
ENGINEER  will make visits to the site and deloimine il
the WORK is proceeding in accordance  uith the CON-
TRACT DOCUMENTS
'11 2  The CONTRACTOR will he held stn< tlv to the in-
lent ol the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS in regard to  Me
quality ol materials, workmanship and execution ol  the
WORK  Inspections may  he made at the  tacloi\ or lab-
rication plant ol the source ol material supplv
27 ;i  The KNC1NKKR will  not  he respon.sihle toi  the
(,(instruction  means,  controls,  techniques, sequences.
procedures,  or construction safely.

274  The KNOIN'KKR shall promptly make  decisions
relative  to  interpretation  ol the  CONTRACT  DOCU-
MKNTS
28
     LAND AND RIGHTS-OF-WA Y
28 1   Prior to issuance  ol NOTICE TO PROCEED,  the
OWN'KR shall ohlam all land and righls-ol-w ay  neces-
sary  lor carrying out and  lor  the  completion  ol  the
WORK  to he performed  pursuant  to  the  CONTRACT
DOCUMKNTS, unless otherwise muluallv agreed
28 2   The OWNER shall provide to the CONTRACTOR
information which delineates and  describes  the lands
owned and nghls-ol-vvay acquned

283   The CONTRACTOR shall  provide at  his own  ex-
pense  tind without liability  to  the OWNER  anv addi-
tional Kind and  access thereto that the CONTRACTOR
may  desire lor temporary construct ion lacihlies  01  loi
storage of materials
29 1   The CONTRACTOR shall guarantee all materials
and  equipment  furnished and  WORK porloimed loi  a
period of one |1| year Iron the date ol SI IHSTAVI 1AI.
COMPLETION  The CONTRACTOR warrants and guar-
antees lor a period ol one  (1| veai  Irom  the  dale  ol
SUBSTANTIAL  COMPLETION oi  the system lh.it  the
completed system   is Irec-  Irom  all  delects  due  to
faulty materials or  workmanship and the  CONTRAC-
TOR shall promptly make such corrections as  may be
necessai y by  reason  ol  such delects  unhiding the i e-
pairs  ol  anv  damage to other p.ills ol  the  svstem re-
sulting Irom SIK h delects The OWNER will  HIV e nolii e
ol  obseived delects with reasonable promptness In the
event that the CONTRACTOR should  l,ol to make  such
repairs, adjustments, or other WORK thai mav  be made
necessaiy bv such delects, the1 OWNER  mav do so ,1111!
charge the CONTRACTOR the cost therein inclined
The Performance BOND shall remain in full force and
effect through the guarantee period

HO    ARBITRATION

30 1   All claims, disputes and other  matters in  question
arising out ol, or  relating to. the CONTRACT DOCU-
MENTS or thi! breach thereol, except loi claims which
have  been waived by  the  making  and acceptance  ol
linal  payment  as provided  by Section 21). shall be de-
cided by arbitration m accordance  with  the Construc-
tion Industry  Arbitration Rules ol  the American Aibi-
tiation Association  This agreement to  arbitrate shall be
specilically  enforceable under  the  prevailing  arbitra-
tion law '1 tie award  tendered by the arbilratois shall
be final, and  judgment may  be entered  upon it in anv
lourt  having junsdiction thereol

302   Notice  ot the demand loi  arbitration shall lie
filed in  writing with the olhei parly  to the CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS and with the,' American Aibilration .Asso-
ciation,  and a copy shall be filed with the ENGINEER.
Demand for  arbitration  shall in  no  event be made on
any claim, dispute or other matter in question which
would be barred  by  the applicable  statute ol limita-
tions
3(1 :(   The CONTRACTOR will cairy on the WORK and
maintain the  progress schedule during any  arbitration
proceedings,   unless  othervxi.se  mutually   agieed  in
writing

31     TAXES
31  1   The CONTRACTOR will pav  all sales, consumer.
use and olhei similar taxes lequired  by  the law ol the
place where the WORK is performed.
                                                                                                   Document No 11
                                                                                         General Conditions Page 9 ot 9
-------
^•^7
^2-
1 \Sf77 ?   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
                                November 8,  1973
                                              PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-6
                                                   PROGRAM GUIDANCE  MEMORANDUM
                                                   NO.  PG-20
TO:        All  Regional  Administrator
           Attn:  Director,  Air and Water Programs  Division

FROM:      Harold P.  Cahill, Jr.
           Director,  Municipal Was
SUBJECT:   Adequacy of Treatment Certification
     All  EDA and HUD assisted projects must conform to the minimum
treatment requirements required for EPA construction grant projects.
On EDA and HUD projects that are presently served by primary treatment
only, adequacy of treatment certification may be issued provided that
the municipality obtains a NPDES Municipal permit, or an identification
of permit discharge conditions, in accordance with Section 402 of the
Act.  The permit must contain a firm schedule for meeting the treatment
requirements of Section 301(b)(l)(B) and (C).

     This supersedes Program Memoranda No. 72-7 and No. 72-9.
-------
                            SAMPLE CERTIFICATION
            EXCESSIVE OR POSSIBLE EXCESSIVE INFILTRATION/INFLOW
     It is hereby certified that the following project(s) is (are),
in my professional judment, subject to excessive or possible
excessive infiltration/inflow as defined in 40CFR 35.927.  It is
further certified that: (1) the treatment works for which this
grant application is made will not be changed by any rehabilitation
program and will be a component part of any rehabilitated system,
(2) that the Grantee has assured that the sewer system evaluation
will be completed, (3) that any resulting rehabilitation program will
be conducted on a schedule consistent with the treatment works construction
and satisfactory to the Regional Administrator, and (4) that I am
authorized to make this certification on behalf of 	 ( State Agency)
                             Signed
                             Title
                             Date
-------
                        SAMPLE CERTIFICATION
                 NON-EXCESSIVE INFILTRATION/INFLOW

     It is hereby certified that the following project(s)  is  (are),
in my professional judgment, not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow
as defined in 40 CFR 35.927, and that I am authorized to make this
certification on behalf of	(State Agency).
                           Signed
                           Title
                           Date
-------
J?    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

                      WASHINGTON, D C.  20460
                                                          August 8, 1975
                                  PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM NO.  75-5
                                  Program Guidance Memorandum
                                  PG-19A
 Subject:  Non-Restrictive Specifications

 From:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
           for Water Program Operations (WH-446)

 To:       All Regional Administrators
           ATTN:  Director, Air and Water Programs Division

       Section 204(a)(6) of the Federal Water Pollution
 Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92500) states that  "no
 specification for bids in connection with such works shall
 be written in such a manner as to contain proprietary,
 exclusionary, or discriminatory requirements other than
 those based upon performance, unless such requirements are
 necessary to test or demonstrate a specific thing or to
 provide for necessary interchangeability of parts and
 equipment, or at least two brand names of comparable quality
 or utility are listed and are followed by the words "or
 equal." 40 CFR 35.938 augments the Act by defining EPA
 policy as encouraging free and open competition.

       This wording in the Act requiring two instead of  one
 name  brand will  tend to increase the A/E's use of descriptive
 detail in the body of the specification and restrict his use
 of brand names to those areas where cost effectiveness can
 be shown to require it.

       The primary purpose of using brand names in a specification
 is to enable the contractor to narrow his search for the
 equipment described in the body of the specification.  Where
 there has been no attempt by the specification writer  to
 describe an item in detail in the body of the specifications
 he is obligated  to  include with the brand name, the model
 number and other specifics to properly identify the desired
 product, provided that two such brand names (and descriptions)
 are  included with the term "or equal" appended.

       The term  "or equal" has replaced the more conventional
  "or  approved equal" in the statute.  This change has been
 made  to  eliminate the connotation previously accepted  that
-------
"or approved equal" products had to be "approved" prior to
the bidding.  The word "equal" has always presupposed a
value judgment which has meaning only when stated by a
qualified individual. Since the A/E has established by
careful analysis the relative equality of two products, it
is clear that he will be the most qualified to determine by
the same means that a third product is equal  to them.
Therefore the determination of the acceptability of a third
product will only be made by the A/E.  In order that all
bidders have the same opportunity, the A/E must include in
the body of the specifications the criteria he will use in
evaluating the proposed "equal" product.

     Specifications which include two brand names of comparable
quality or utility, followed by the words "or equal" meet
the requirement of the statute.  Exceptions to this require-
ment must be accompanied by a written "professional judgment
finding" by the consulting engineer, that a restrictive
specification is required to:

          1.  Test or demonstrate a specific process or
              piece of equipment, or

          2.  Provide necessary interchangeability of parts
              and equipment

          3.  Show total cost-effective performance of the
              equipment for the life of the plant.

     Cost effective performance of the equipment includes not
only initial expenditures but also operation and maintenance
costs  and all other costs incurred in selecting a  piece of
equipment.  While not all inclusive, some of the items to be
considered  in the cost-effective analysis include  guarantee
life,  start-up  assistance, delivery time and redesign costs
when the considered  item will not fit the original design.

     In the situation where an A/E believes that only one
product will meet  his requirements,  he may utilize the
provisions  of 3 above by selecting the nearest competitive
product and performing a cost effective analysis on  the two.
He may include  the  exclusionary  item  in the project  speci-
fications after having shown  the cost effectiveness  of  the
desired product.
-------
     Every Step II grant submittal of final  plans and
specifications shall be accompanied by one copy of each
professional  judgment finding and cost-effective analysis,
supporting a  proprietory specification, performed by the A/E
during the preparation of the plans and specifications and a
certificate from the grantee stating that the accompanying
professional  judgment findings and/or the cost effective
analyses have been reviewed and approved.

     The practice of inserting a general  provision in the
specifications to cover the lack of inclusion of the specific
"two name brands or equal" clause in the specifications
should be discontinued.

     Based upon queries from the Regional Offices, there
appear to be  two other cases which need clarification.  The
resolution of these can best be handled by the use of hypo-
thetical situations.

     Case I  The specifications call for A or B or equal.

          The bids come in showing either A or B but with A
costing more  than B.  The grantee wishes to install A,
saying it is  superior.

          From EPA's point of view the fact that A and B
were listed in the specifications as equal makes them equal
and the grantee must accept the low bid.

          If the grantee goes ahead and installs A, EPA will
participate in none of the cost of purchasing and installing
A.

     Case II   The specifications call for A or B or equal.

          The bids come in with neither A nor B but showing
the use of C. The grantee believes C is not equal to A or B
and wishes to use A which will cost more.  C meets all other
requirements  of the specifications.  The only question is as
to whether it is equal to A and B.

          EPA will accept a cost-effective analysis proving
A to be superior to C as disqualifying C and will share in
the total cost of installing A.  Case II type cost-effective
analyses will be included in the package with the request
for approval  to award the construction contract and will be
accompanied by a grantee certificate stating that the analyses
have been reviewed and approved.
-------
          If no cost-effective analysis proving the superiority
of A is prepared and the grantee still  wishes to install  A
and pay the difference between A and C, EPA will not participate
in the cost.  The grantee must bear the entire cost of
purchasing and installing A.
                                                                                  4
     With regard to materials, such as  pipe, it is not
mandatory that two or more different types of material be
specified; however, maximum competitive bidding is encouraged                   *
commensurate with sound engineering practice and requirements.
Title II Regulations 35.935-26 states,  "with regard to
materials, if a single material is specified, the grantee                       ' ^
must be prepared to substantiate the basis for the selection
of the materials."  It is preferable to use performance
specifications for materials based upon accepted nationally-
known standards such as AWWA, USAS, ASTM, AASHO and Federal
Specifications and Standards.
                                                                                  4
     Utilization of the above guidance should resolve most
problems, reducing proportionately the number of paragraph
35.939 appeals.

     This Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-19A, Non-Restrictive
Specifications, supersedes PG-19, dated November 2, 1973 and
PM 73-1, dated February 21, 1973. It should be noted that
the draft memo, dated July 3, 1973, entitled: "Non-Restrictive
Specifications Section 204(a)(6) FWPCA Amendments of 1972"
which was circulated for comment has no official standing
whatsoever.
-------
      \
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
      &                      WASHINGTON, D.C  20460
                              February 7, 1974
                                                              OFFICE OF AIR
                                                            AND WATER PROGRAM5
                                               PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-7
                                                PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                                NO. PG-24
TO:       All Regional Administrators


FROM:     Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
          Municipal Construction Division
                                                                  I/ '
SUBJECT:  Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation

     Title II Regulations in final form were signed by the Administrator
on February 4, 1974, and will be effective immediately upon publication
in the Federal Register.  The following basic changes were made to
Section 35.927 to provide more flexibility to the Regional Administrators
in program implementation and to provide for a period of transition.

     A detailed infiltration/inflow analysis will not be required where it
can reasonably be shown that the treatment works is not subject to exessive
infiltration/inflow or will be component part of any system that is to be
rehabilitated.  Provision has been made for certification by the State
agency that excessive infiltration/inflow does or does not exist.

     The Regional Administrator will determine that excessive infiltration/
inflow does not exist on the basis of State certification, if he finds that
the State had adequately established the basis for its certification through
submission of only the minimum information necessary to enable a judgment to
be made.  This could include a preliminary review by the applicant or State
of, for example, such parameters as per capita design flow, ratio of flow
to design flow, flow records or estimates, and/or hydrological, geographical,
and geological conditions.

Step 3 Grants

     (1)  When the State certification is not submitted as above, the
Regional Administrator should make his determination on the basis of an
infiltration/inflow analysis.
-------
     (2)  In the event it is determined that the treatment works
would be regarded in the absence of a program of correction as
subject to excessive or possible excessive infiltration/inflow,  a
grant may be awarded provided that the treatment works for which
grant application is made will  not be changed by any subsequent
rehabilitation program or will  be a component part of any
rehabilitated system as specified in section 35.927-5 provided
that the grantee agrees to complete the sewer system evaluation
and any resulting rehabilitation on an implementation schedule
the State adopts subject to approval by the Regional Administrator
which shall be inserted as a special condition in the Grant Agreement.

     (3)  For projects wherein in the opinion of the Regional
Administrator excessive infiltration does not exist, the Step 3
Grant may bo made based on State certification without requiring
the sewer evaluation.

     Attached are samples of acceptable certification forms for
non-excessive, and excessive or possible excessive infiltration/inflow.

Step 2 Grants

     For Step 2 projects where the preliminary engineering report
includes all elements of the facilities plan except the sewer system
evaluation, a grant may be awarded if the Regional Administrator
determines on the basis of the State certification or the infiltration/
inflow analysis that excessive infiltration/inflow does not exist.
Step 2 Grants can also be made where the analysis indicates that
excessive infiltration/inflow exists but the treatment works capacity
would not be changed by any subsequent rehabilitation program, with
the same grant condition as outlined abova for Step 3 Grants.

Step 1 Grants

     For Step 1, projects, a complete sewer system evaluation consisting
of the infiltration/inflow analysis and, if required, the sewer system
evaluation survey in accordance with section 35.927 is an essential
element of  ere facilities plan except for projects certified by the
State and determined by the Regional Administrator as  not subject to
excessive infiltration/inflow.

     These changes are to be implemented immediately  in review of grant
applicants for Step 1, 2, and 3 Grants.  Applicants that have initiated
evaluations based on previous drafts of guidelines should be encouraged
-to complete the studies, but the scope of these evaluations may be ad-
justed in accordance with the revised section 35.927.
-------
     The course of action to be followed in correction of excessive
infiltration/inflow may take into account,  in addition to flow and
related data, other considerations such as  cost-effectiveness, the
cost of substantial treatment works construction delay, the effects
of plant bypassing and overloading, public  health emergencies, and
relevant social and environmental factors.
-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             WASHINGTON, D-.C. 20460

                                March 1, 1974

                                           PROGRAM  REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM  PRM  75-8
                                                PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                                NO.  PG-25
SUBJECT:   Flood Disaster Protection Act  of  1973
          (Public Law 93-234)

FROM:      Harold P.  Cahill,  Jr.,  Director
          Municipal  Construction  Division (AW-436)

          Alexander  J.  Greene,  Director
          Grants Administration Division (PM-216)

TO:       Regional Administrators

      A new public law requiring  flood insurance for any  project
involving acquisition or construction which receives Federal
financial  assistance was enacted on  December 30,  1973.   It  is
called the "flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973."   This Act
amends the National  Flood Insurance Act  of 1968.

      Both Acts provide for low cost  flood insurance for  projects
in flood prone areas through the means of a subsidy  and  require,
as a condition precedent, the enactment  by local jurisdictions  of
land use and control measures to guide the use of flood  plains.
The new Act is under the jurisdiction of the Department   of  Housing
and Urban Development and takes effect on March  4,  1974,  as  to
the need for flood insurance before grant assistance may  be  awarded.

      The 1973 Act affects the EPA grant programs  as follows:

      (1)  No grant assistance may be approved after March 4, 1974,
for any project involving construction in a designated flood hazard
area in which the Federal flood insurance is available unless the
project (or those portions lying in  such hazard area) is  covered
by flood insurance for its entire useful life in an  amount at
least equal to its eligible development  or project cost  or to the
maximum limit of coverage made available, whichever is less.   The
present maximum limit for non-residential structures is  $200,000  on
the structure and $200,000 on contents.   (The community,  however,  is
-------
not required to participate in the program prior to July 1,  1975,
and so long as it does not participate, there is no insurance
requirement.)

     (2)  No grant assistance may be approved after July 1,  1975,
for any project in a designated flood hazard area unless the com-
munity is then participating in the flood insurance program.

     With regard to construction grants, no Step 2 or 3 award.
can be made after March 4, 1974, for any project in a designated
area in which the insurance is presently available unless, as a
condition of the grant, the grantee agrees to acquire and maintain
the insurance as required by g 102(a) of the '73 Act.

     Effective immediately, the following Grant Condition shall be
included in any award of either Step 2 or Step 3 grants.  Its purpose
is to provide insurance for any project or any portion thereof
which is to be located in a designated flood hazard area where
Federal flood insurance is available at the date of the grant and
is not exempt from the requirement of insurance by virtue of the
exemption for State-owned property that is covered under an adequate
State policy of self-insurance:

          The grantee agrees to acquire and maintain any
          flood insurance made available to it under the
          National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended
          in an amount at least equal to the total eligible
          project costs or to the maximum limit of coverage
          made available under the National Flood Insurance
          Act of 1968, as amended, whichever is less for the
          entire useful life of the project.  Provided that
          this condition shall not be applicable if, on
          the date of grant award, flood insurance was not
          available pursuant to the Flood Insurance Act of
          1968, as amended, for property in the project
          location.

     There are now approximately 2200 local jurisdictions to which
Section 102(a) applies.  A computer listing of these areas is
attached.  As this list is updated by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the additional listing will be forwarded as  soon
as available.

     Questions arising out of the application of the '73 Act to EPA
grants should be directed to the Municipal Construction Division or
the Grants Administration Division as appropriate.
-------
Questions relating to insurability should be directed to the
Federal Insurance Administration, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, or to the appropriate servicing company offices,
a list of which is also attached.
Attachments:
-------
f
\
  -      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. DC  20460     [\JQU  4  ]9/4

                                     PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-9
                                           Program Guidance  Memorandum
                                           PG-25A

Subject:  Supplement to PG  No.  25;  Flood Disaster Protection
          Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)
From:     Harold P.  Cahill, Jr., Director, Municipa
          Construction Division (WH-447)

To:       Regional  Administrators
          ATTN:   Air and Water Program Directors
     On July 17, 1974, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
published guidelines for Federal  agencies regarding the mandatory
purchase of flood insurance.   The HUD guidelines provide that if the
total value of all  insurable improvements or property is less than
$10,000, flood insurance need not be required.

     The grant conditions contained in PG No.  25, Subject:  Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234), pertaining to the
flood insurance purchase requirement have accordingly been revised.
The revised applicable condition  below must be  included in each
grant award made, until the publication of the  final general  grant
regulations in the  Federal Register.

     If any grantees with insurable improvements and property of less
than $10,000 have been made subject to the earlier conditions, you
may amend those grant agreements  to substitute  the applicable
condition below.
                 CONSTRUCTION GRANT CONDITION (Step 3)

     The grantee agrees to acquire and maintain any flood
     insurance made available to it under the National Flood
     Insurance Act of 1968, as amended.  The insurance shall
     be in an amount at least equal to the total eligible
     project costs excluding cost of land and uninsurable
     improvements, or to the maximum limit of coverage made
     available under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,
     as amended, whichever is less, for the entire useful life
     of the project.
-------
      This  condition  shall  not  be  applicable  if, on  the date of
      execution  of  the  grant  agreement  by  both  parties flood
      insurance  was not available  pursuant to the  Flood Insurance
      Act of 1968,  as amei
-------
I-
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                           5   1974
                                                                   OFFICE OF
                                                              AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS
                                         PROGRAM REQUIREMENT  MEMORANDUM PRM 75-10
                                                      PROGRAM  GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                                      NO.  PG-28
TO:


FROM:


SUBJECT:  User Charges and Industrial  Cost Recovery System
                All  Regional  Administrators
                Attn:   Director,  Air and  Water Programs  Division
                Harold P.  Cahill,  Jr.,  Director
                Municipal  Construction  Divisio
            jcent legal  opinions from the  General  Counsel's  Office  iofrease
      EPA's aannnistrative latitude in approving  user  charge and  industrial
      cost recovery systems.   It represents  a  major change in poM'cy  regarding
      the use of ereLyalorem taxes for collecting  operation and^faintenance
      costs and the methods for allocating and collecting irtfKjstrial  cost
      recovery.

           The legal opinions permit the following sua^emental criteria
      for user charges and inw^strial cost re coveryysys terns.

           User Charges

                Operation and maintenah^e  crfsts may be collected  by means of
           an ad valorem tax system prov^ed that the  system results  in user
           classes paying their proporionate  share of such  costs.

                The use  of ad valjH"em taxes  cariNM; permitted as a source of
           funds for operation ami maintenance coHjsonly in those  cases
           where such a  methcurhas been used historrfcally.   Where there is
           a history of  theXise of ad valorem  taxationVpr collection of
           operation andyfiaintenance costs,  and it is  properly demonstrated
           that it woulfl be administratively difficult,  mo\o>stly,  and
           disruptiv^to change that system, and  that  the goa\of proportionality
           among uarer classes can be achieved  by  means of an aoS^alorem tax
           systenfTsuch  a system may be used.   Conversely, where  Tt is
           reasonable and practicable to abandon  an ad valorem tax
            to adopt a user charge system, it  should be  done.
-------
 \   The ad valorem tax system must result in the distribution
of\peration and maintenance costs for treatment works jrithin
the grantee's jurisdiction to each user class in propo/tion to
the contribution to the total wastewater loading of fcfie  treatment
works b\ such user class.   Factors such as strength/ volume
and delivery flow rate characteristics should be c/nsidered
and included where appropriate as the basis for determining
if there is \roportionality between user classe/.  However,
operation and\maintenance costs which can be logically  charged
to property majkbe distributed in proportion/to property value.
An example of suth a cost is that required /or treatment of
infiltration and \flow.  Additionally, o#ier operation  and
maintenance costs Such as those for seryvhg public property,
metering and billing^ operating tests, amd certain administrative
services may be distributed equally to/each user.

     A surcharge may be levied on a/user class from which ad
valorem tax revenue alone\s insufficient to create proportionality
between user classes.      \   /

                            V
     Gross disproportionality Jgtween individual users  in a user
class would evidence an erroi/i n\cl as si fi cation.  However, a
grantee should not be requij#id to\demonstrate proportionality
between individual users o/ a user*^lass.

     In order to demonstrate proportionality between user classes
a grantee should be rexfuired to submit^ta on:
     1.  The use of/the system by each us<
water characteristics.
                                   class based on waste-
     2.
 class.
The
nt of ad valorem taxes collected from each user
     3.  Thar local requirements for commitment of apportion of ad
 valorem  tajres collected to pay for waste treatment services.
                                                     \
     4./The method  of determining the use of the systan by each
 user cjKjss  for  costs allocable to wastewater characteris\ics.
      5.  Justification for  the method of user classification.
      6.   The  costs  of waste  treatment services to be allocate
 Jroportion  to property  value (if any).
-------
              The costs of waste treatment services to be   btfSled in
     proportiorT"to-via£tewater characteristics.     ,
                      ~~***-                     -'•*
          8.  The costs of wase^T^tf^f*services to be collected by
     means of a uniform charge* te^'each

          9- .../^"Surcharges to be levied on user classe*t»>Bb
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:   Approval  of Reimbursement Projects  Not
          Previously Serviced by EPA

FROM:
TO:
                                                               DATE:  ApR 1 7 1974
John T.  Rhett
Deputy Assistant Administrate/ ?or Water Opera£ion\  (AW-446)
                                       PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS  MEMORANDUM PRM 75-
Regional Administrators     "          Program Guidance  Memorandum
ATTN:  Air and Water Program Directors  PG-30
              This  is  in  response to a need for more specific guidelines required
          to  properly review  and  process  applications for reimbursement under
          Section  206 which were  not previously serviced by EPA.  The Office of
          General  Counsel  has  provided us with an opinion regarding the legal
          issues involved  and  the mandatory requirements which applicants must
          meet.  It  is  attached for your  information and should be reviewed before
          undertaking action  on the "woodwork" projects.

              So  that  the review can be  conducted using itemized specific require-
          ments, we  are supplementing the legal opinion with a checklist of
          applicable provisions.  These provisions represent minimum compliance
          requirements  to  be  met  by the previously unserviced projects prior to
          approval for  award.

              Initially it is necessary  that certain actions on each of the
          projects be fulfilled by the State.  They are as follows:

              1.  Provide a  copy of the  State Permit, or provide
                  certification  that the project was designed and
                  built in accordance with regulations and
                  requirements of the State Agency.

              2.  Certify that the facility, upon completion, was
                  operated consistent with State requirements. (If
                  the  facility is not currently being operated, an
                  explanation of the mitigating circumstances must
                  be provided.)

              3.  Provide a  statement to the effect that the project
                  was  constructed for benefit of public at large.
                  The  statement  must address the public benefits
                  derived by  project construction; the relation of
                  the  ultimate cost of constructing and maintaining
                  the  works  to the public interest; and the public
                  necessity  of the treatment works.
EPA fen* 1320-6 (Rtv. 6-72)
-------
     Upon receipt of the above,  the remainder of the review will  be
based on information submitted by the applicant.   Since it is  likely
that all of the needed items of data will  not be on hand with  the
applicant's original application, it will  be necessary to request
them in writing.  In that letter, it is important to remind the
applicant of the fact that eligibility for reimbursement is limited
solely to treatment works as defined in Section 8 of the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act prior to the October 18, 1972 Amendments thereto,
i.e., sewage treatment plants including additions, modifications,
alterations, etc., and appurtenant intercepting and outfall sewers,
force mains and pump stations.  Collection sewers, etc., are not
eligible for reimbursement grant consideration.

     In addition to the fact that the municipality's application must
have been on file in the regional office by January 31, 1974,  with the
elements of data required in the published regulations, the following
items are also needed to determine its eligibility.

     1.  Certification that standard procurement procedures
         were followed—with all contracts awarded to the
         lowest responsive bidder(s); and that proof of
         advertising, bid tabs, etc., will be available
         upon audit.  Certification that all costs applied
         for have been paid and that evidence of such
         payment will be available upon audit.

     2.  Certification that the contractors paid the same
         general level of wages to their employees as was
         paid to those similarly situated at the time.

     3.  A resolution from the applicant's governing body
         authorizing a representative, by name and title,
         to execute and file all documents regarding the
         project.

     4.  Evidence that the project was approved by the
         appropriate planning agency.  (Applicable to
         projects applying for the 10% planning bonus.)

     5.  A true copy of each executed contract document.

     6.  One copy each of the approved final construction
         estimate and bills submitted to the municipality
         for engineering services rendered.  Requests for
         grant  assistance for legal costs, bond costs,
         administrative costs, etc., should be discouraged.
-------
    However, where applicant desires such grant
    support, bills pertaining to such costs must
    be furnished.  If the construction estimate
    does not include signatures of the consulting
    engineer, the contractor, and the municipality,
    appropriate documentation substantiating the
    concurrence of the three parties should
    accompany the construction estimate.

7.  Compliance Report Form (158-R0034); EPA Form No.
    4700-4--to indicate nondiscrimination.

8.  In addition, the grantee must be notified that,
    should his project be otherwise approved for
    reimbursement, in accepting the grant he must
    also accept the condition to acquire and maintain
    flood insurance where applicable and available.
    (See page 11 for language of condition.)

9.  If project is still under construction, it will
    be necessary to assure compliance with the
    additional requirements of the General Counsel
    memorandum:

      a.  Relocation Assistance - Page 8

      b.  E.O. 11246 (equal employment opportunity)-
          page 9

      c.  Cope!and Act; for contracts and subcontracts
          awarded subsequent to the date of the
          reimbursement grant award.  Pages 11 & 12

This memorandum has been concurred in by the EPA Office of Audit.
Attachment
-------
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:   Federal Requirements Applicable to the      DATE:  March 28, 1974
           Award of Grant Assistance under
           Sec. 206 of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments  (33 UJ3.C. 1286).
FROM:     Joseph M. Zorc
         Assistant General Counsel, Grants (EG-334)
TO--       John T.  Rhett
          ;puty Assist
           for Water Program Operations (AW-446)
                                                 ^^
         Deputy Assistant Administrator           |\
                                                  '
              Section 206(a) of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments
         (33 U.S.C. 1286), as amended on December 28, 1973 by
         Public Law 93-207  (87 Stat. 906) authorizes reimbursement
         grants for what may be analyzed as two categories of
         projects.  In the first category are projects previously
         awarded grant assistance under the former FWPCA, and
         thereby received previously-required Federal approval,
         and projects which, while not awarded grant assistance
         under the former FWPCA, nevertheless were submitted for
         Federal approval, in order to assure compliance with
         applicable Federal requirements and to better assure future
         eligibility for Federal reimbursement; in both cases, projects
         were reviewed to determine compliance with then-applicable
         Federal requirements.  In the second category are projects
         which have received no grant assistance under the former
         FWPCA and were not submitted for review with respect to
         Federal requirements prior to application for assistance
         under Sec. 206 of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments.

              You have requested us to advise you as to the Federal
         statutory requirements applicable to the award of assistance
         to these projects, particularly with reference to the second
         category mentioned above and the requirement of Sec. 206
         that the project must be determined to meet "the requirements
         of section 8 of this Act in effect at the time of the initia-
         tion of construction."  We are herewith furnishing our
         analysis of what we believe to be the applicable Federal
         requirements as follows:   (1)  the requirements of Section 8
         of the former FWPCA;  (2) other requirements of the 1972 FWPCA
         Amendments; and (3) other Federal requirements.

                      (A) Requirements of Section 8

              Section 206(a) authorizes reimbursement assistance for
         each project
 EPA Form 1320-6 (fev. 6-72)
-------
          ". .  .on which construction was initiated
          after June 30, 1966, but before July 1, 1972,
          which was approved by the appropriate State
          water pollution control agency and which the
          Administrator finds meets the requirements of
          section 8 of this Act in effect at the time of
          the initiation of construction . . . ."

For your convenient reference, there is reproduced as an
attachment to this memorandum, those statutory provisions
which were in effect after June 30, 1966, and before July 1,
1972, except for the several technical amendments which
extended the authorization provision of section 8(d) beyond
June 30, 1971,  pending enactment of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments
(P.L. 92-500).

     In summary, we have found that there are no differences
during this period in the substantive provisions of Section 8
which are relevant to Sec. 206 project review.  These require-
ments are discussed in some detail below.

     We have also noted, at p. 33 of the Senate Report which
accompanied S.  2770 (S. Rep. 92-414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess.)
the statement of intent that EPA must determine that each
project for which assistance is requested under Sec. 206
"... was designed and constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the Act, and regulations thereunder, in effect
at the time that construction was initiated."(emphasis added).
We believe that the prior regulations are applicable, to the
extent that they reflect an interpretation of statutory require-
ments which are otherwise applicable for the purposes of Sec.
206 review.  We do not believe that additional administrative
requirements set forth in prior regulations must be made appli-
cable — for example, the industrial cost recovery requirement
that related to the non-Federal share of project costs, which
was published at 35 F.R. 10757 on July 2, 1970, and  codified
at 18 CFR §601.34 (January 1, 1971 ed.).  Inasmuch as the
Section 8 regulations published on June 9, 1972, at 37 F.R.
11650, and codified at 40 CFR §§35.800 et seq.  (July 1, 1973
ed.) constituted principally a recodification of the Sec. 8
regulations occasioned by the transfer of the regulations from
Title 18 to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, we
would suggest that these regulations be utilized to the extent
relevant for Sec. 206 project review.
-------
     1.  Section 8(b) (1)(first phrase):  requires that the
project must have been approved by the appropriate State
water pollution control agency.  This provision roust be met
for all reimbursement grants.  We suggest that this require-
ment be met through certification by the state agency if a
copy of the state agency approval cannot be furnished by the
applicant.  The requirement for prior Federal approval is
overriden by Sec. 206, which authorizes reimbursement for
projects for which prior Federal approval or assistance has
has not been obtained.

     2.  Section 8(b)(1)(second phrase);  requires the project
to be included in any "comprehensive program" developed
pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Act.  This does not refer
to "comprehensive plans" under Section 3(c) (support for this
can be found not only in the semantics of Section 8, but by
reference to Sections 2 and 6(b)(2) of P.L. 660, July 9, 1956,
which set forth the identical requirement before Section 3(c)
was added by amendment).  Similarly, the provision does not
refer to State programs developed pursuant to Section 7 of
the Act, which are addressed in Section 8(b)(l)(5), discussed
below.  Very little of the planning contemplated by the subject
provision was completed.  Compliance with this requirement can
be effected by  relatively simple intra-agency review to deter-
mine whether the project is consistent with S3 (a) progrcim
requirements, if any, in effect at the time of project initiation,

     3.  Section 8(b)(1)(2);  sets forth the former basic 30%
Federal participation limitation.  This has no bearing on Sec.
206 project review of reimbursement grant applications, since
Sec. 206 authorizes a higher level of Federal assistance
(50/55%) .

     4.  Section 8(b)(1)(3);  requires each grantee to agree
to pay the non-Federal  share of the project.  We suggest that
this requirement can be met either by a statement from the
applicant, or other adequate evidence of payment of project
costs, in cases where construction has been completed.  If
construction has not been completed, payment may not be made
for the incomplete work pursuant to Sec. 206, and the grantee
need only demonstrate that it has made adequate provision to
pay its remaining costs.

     5.  Section 8(b)(1)(4):  requires that the grantee make
"... provision satisfactory to the  [Administrator, EPA] for
assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of
the treatment works  ..." after its  completion.  For both
completed and uncompleted projects, the Agency must assure
-------
provision by the grantee of proper operation and maintenance.
One means of accomplishing this would be by means of State
assurance that it has found appropriate provision has been
made for O&M by the grantee.

     6.  Section 8(b) (1) (5);  requires that the project be
"in conformity with" the State water pollution control program
submitted pursuant to Section 7 of the former FWPCA, and
also requires that the project be ". . . certified by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency as entitled
to priority over other eligible projects . . . ."  The former
limitation may be met by a State assurance that the project
was, at time of initiation of construction, not inconsistent
with the State's Section 7 program.  As regards the latter
limitation, certification of priority for reimbursement
projects would be meaningless and, in fact, violative of the
intent of P.L. 93-207; therefore, EPA review need not consider
this element.

     7.  Section 8(b)(1)(6);  sets forth  the basis of increase
in Federal participation to 40% of costs, and has no bearing
on Sec. 206 project review of reimbursement grant applications,
since Sec. 206 authorizes a higher level of Federal assistance
(50/55%).

     8.  Section 8(b) (1) (7);  50% eligibility (see 3 and 7
above).  Note that the State's "agreement to pay" is not
required for reimbursement under Section 206.

     9.  Section 8(c)(first sentence):  requires the Adminis-
trator to determine for each project the public benefits to
be derived therefrom; the propriety of Federal aid to the
project; the cost-benefit factor; and the adequacy of provisions
made by the grant applicant for proper and efficient post-
construction operation and maintenance.  Assurance from the
State agency would provide a sufficient basis for compliance
with this requirement  (see also 5 above).

    10.  Section 8(c)(remainder);  concerns allotment formulae,
reallotment procedures, and reimbursement under Section 8.  This
provision  has no  bearing on project review of reimbursement
grant applications under §206.

    11.  Section 8(d);  an authorization of appropriations,
having no bearing on project review.
-------
    12.  Section 8 (e) ;   this provision contains a definition
of construction which has been carried forward verbatim into
40 CFR 35.860.  This definition of construction is applicable
to all reimbursement projects under Section 206(a).  We are
aware that Section 212(1) of the Amendments contains a much
broader definition of construction which, according to that
section, is for application to all Title II.  This provision
was so interpreted in floor comments of former Congresswoman
Bella Abzug (see A Legislative History of the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972,93d Cong., 1st Sess., No. 93-1,
pT372(hereinafter "Legislative History").  Nevertheless, we
believe that the definition of construction contained in Section
8 is controlling.  In principles of statutory construction,
the specific provision takes preference over the general;
Section 206 (a) specifically directs one to Section 8 of the
Act.  Section 212(1) clearly was designed for different
purposes, namely, for correlation with the "segmented" con-
struction approach Congress promoted  (see Legislative History,
p. 294) .  Legislative history of the Act indicates that Section
206 was intended to be remedial in nature, to correct the
inequality which was found between projects funded on different
bases.  All projects during the period in question - 6/30/66 -
7/1/72 - were guided by the definition of construction in
Section 8, and a gross broadening of the scope of reimburse-
ment projects - which would result from adopting the new
definition of construction - would appear to be markedly
preferential rather than remedial.  Neither the statute nor
its legislative history indicates that Congress intended for
reimbursement projects to suddenly obtain such status.  In
summary, we believe that the broader definition of construction
in the 1972 FWPCA Amendments applies  solely to new construction
funded under Sec. 201 of the Act, and that the former definition
set forth in 40 CPR 35.860 and Section 8(e) of the prior FWPCA
is applicable to Sec. 206 assistance.

     13.  Section 8(f);  sets forth the requirements for an
increased grant for urban planning.   Section 206 (a) provides
for reimbursement up to 55% of project costs "... where the
Administrator also determines that such treatment works was
constructed in conformity with a comprehensive metropolitan
treatment plan as described in Section 8(f)  .  .  . as in effect
immediately prior to the date of enactment of the  [Amendments]
.  . .  ."  As we understand it, arrangements presently exist
(including cooperative arrangements with HUD) which will
facilitate review for this increased  benefit.  The same
procedures should be observed as have been followed under
Section  8.
-------
                            6

     14.  Section 8(g);  Davis-Bacon Act requirements.  Provides
that the Administrator shall "... take such action as may
be necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed
by contractors or subcontractors on projects for which grants
are made under this section ..." shall be paid at least
prevailing wage rates.  The Secretary of Labor establishes
the rates, pursuant to 40 USC 276a et seq., the so-called
Davis-Bacon Act.  We are informed thTt the Department of Labor
has advised the Agency informally that it will not be feasible
to determine prevailing wage rates on "old"work.  It appears
clear that contracts  (or subcontracts) awarded after the date
of reimbursement grant award must conform to the requirements
of the law.  For earlier awards, the agency will generally be
unable to determine the prevailing rate; even if the rate was
determined, enforcing compliance with the rate would be difficult.
We do not believe that this very practical inability to determine
retrospective compliance with Section 8(g) should be permitted
to slow the reimbursement program; neither do we believe that
Congress intended such a result.  A distinction may be drawn
between the fundamental purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act - which
case law holds to be protection of employees from substandard
wages - and the method of achieving that purpose, which was
to direct the Secretary of Labor to determine minimum wages
for a project based on prevailing rates in the locality.  It
will generally be impossible to implement the Act's purpose
by the Congressionally-selected method; we do not, however,
believe this gives the agency authority to dismiss any attempt
at achieving the purpose of the Act.  We believe that wherever
possible, the agency should seek to obtain available evidence
regarding whether the grantee's contractors paid the same
general level of wages to their employees as was paid to those
similarly situated at the time.  A written affirmation to that
effect, obtained from the grantee and accompanying the grant
application, would generally be sufficient to meet the purpose
of the Act, given the unusual circumstances.

     (B) Other Requirements of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments

     There are several requirements in the 1972 FWPCA Amend-
ments, as amended, which are applicable.  We note, initially,
however, that the requirements of Sec. 201(g) for the applica-
tion of best practicable waste treatment  technology, for the
study of alternative  waste management techniques, for the
application of technology for the reclaiming or recycling of
water or otherwise  eliminate the discharge of pollutants,
and for infiltration  analysis, while applicable to assistance
under Sec. 201, are not applicable to Sec. 206 grant assistance.
The requirements of Section 204 are similarly inapplicable.
-------
     1.  Section 501(a):   issuance of regulations.   The
regulations promulgated on January 29, 1974 (39 F.R. 3677)
provide, at 40 CFR §35.865(b)  that "The applicant must
furnish such other information as may be required for
determination of entitlement or quantum under this Subpart.
This affords the basis for obtaining documentation or informa-
tion required to be furnished.

     2.  Section 501(c);   grantee records.  Pursuant to this
provision, the grantee is obligated to maintain and furnish
records adequate to establish eligibility and prove quantum
with respect to a Sec. 206 claim for reimbursement.  As an
alternative to requiring copies of relevant documents  (the
construction contract, for example), it would be sufficient
to require that the grantee make such records available upon
audit; see 4. below.

     3.  Section 501(d):   maintenance of records for audit and
examination by EPA or GAO.  This pertains to the period of
claims processing, and three years after final payment; see
Article 2 of the EPA General Grant Conditions, Appendix A to
Subchapter B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

     4.  Section 3 of PL 93-207:  audit before final payment.
This statutory provision permits interim payments to be made
on Sec. 206 claims, but also requires, in conjunction with
the Sec. 206 payment mechanism, that an audit be accomplished
for each project prior to the final Sec. 206 payment.

     5.  Section 2 of PL 93-207;  statutory limitations date
for presentation of Sec.206 claims.  The grant file must
contain or refer to adequate evidence of receipt of the Sec.
206 claim on or before January 31, 1974.


              (C)  Other Federal Requirements

     In addition to the requirements of Section 8 and  of the
1972 FWPCA Amendments, there are other requirements applicable
to all grant awards, by virtue of other legislation and
collateral requirements, such as Executive Orders.  We have
noted that Section 206(a) itself states only that the  require-
ments of Section 8 must be met.  However, neither this statement
nor the legislative history of the Act provides any basis for
construing Section 206 (a) as waiving those other requirements
which are applicable to Federal grant awards generally  (such
as the award authority under Section  201(g) or  Section 208).
-------
                            8

     1.  NEPA.  Section 102 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332) requires
an environmental impact study of all "... major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment . .  . ."  However, Sec 511(c)(l) of the 1972
FWPCa Amendments provides that "Except for the provision of
Federal financial assistance for the purpose of assisting the
construction of publicly owned treatment works as authorized
by section 201 of this Act, ... no action of the Administra-
tor taken pursuant to this Act shall be deemed a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-
ment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 . .  . ."  Accordingly, NEPA review is not required
for reimbursement grants, which are awarded under the separate
grant award authorization of Sec. 206 of the Act.  We note
that NEPA review, if it were required, would be impractical,
since there generally are no alternative approaches which
are feasible in the case of reimbursement projects the construc-
tion of which is either completed or substantially completed.
Also, NEPA was enacted after initiation of construction of
many of the Sec. 206 projects.

     2.  Relocation Assistance.  The Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 4621 et seq.,) prohibits approval of any Federal
assistance to any project until the Administrator determines
that the policies of the Act will be met (see 40 CFR Part 4
for EPA regulations implementing the Act).   The Act requires
that certain benefits be made available to businesses and per-
sons displaced by a project after January 1, 1971.  Thus, even
though a project may have begun in 1967, if persons or businesses
were relocated after January 1, 1971, the benefits of the Act
must be made available (if, on the other hand, dislocation
occurred prior to January 1, 1971 on a project which is not
yet complete, no benefits would be available).  Implementation
of the Act during the remaining periods of uncompleted projects
should be accomplished by means of procedures presently used
for relocations under construction grants.   Implementation of
the Act for relocations which occurred after January 1, 1971
without compliance with the Relocation Act, however, may prove
troublesome.  Reimbursement grantees must be notified of the
requirements of the Act, and informed that compliance with
the Act is a condition of the grant.  One means of obtaining
such compliance, where required, could be by requiring the
grantee to take all reasonable steps to locate and inform
potential relocation assistance recipients, including, where
necessary, advertisement in newspapers of wide circulation
in the area.
-------
     3.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964.   Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act provides that no person shall,  on the basis of
race, color, or national origin ". .  .be  excluded from
participation in,  be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination  under any program or  activity receiving
Federal financial  assistance."  (Section 601, 42 USC 2000d).
To effect this provision, all reimbursement project applica-
tions should be accompanied by the Compliance Report form
(EPA Form No.4700-4) developed by EPA's office of civil rights.
This will generally be done quite routinely for ongoing
projects; for completed projects, the form will develop
information on discrimination in service area scope, which
is the primary matter of concern.  If discrimination is dis-
covered, this office should be consulted as well as the Office
of Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, prior to the taking of any
action.

     4.  E.O. 11246  (equal employment opportunity).   Section
301 of E.O. 11246  states in pertinent part as follows:

          "Each executive department and agency which
          administers a program involving Federal  financial
          assistance shall require as a condition  for the
          approval of any grant  .  .  . which may involve a
          construction contract, that the applicant for
          Federal assistance undertake and agree to incorporate,
          or cause to be incorporated, into all construction
          contracts paid for in whole or in part with funds
          obtained from the Federal  Government  ... or under-
          taken pursuant to any Federal program involving such
          grant .   .  . the provisions prescribed for Government
          contracts by Section 202 of this Order  ..."

The provisions of E.O. 11246 depend  for their efficacy upon
contractual  implementation.  The Order must be  implemented  for
all contracts awarded after the date of award of a reimburse-
ment grant  (see EPA's regulations  implementing  the Order,
40 CFR Part  8).  However, the agency need not require revision
or modification of contracts which have been awarded prior  to
the date of  grant award.  The language of Section  301 of the
Order clearly is susceptible of  an interpretation  which
countenances prospective application only  (as are  the implement-
ing regulations of  the Department  of Labor;  see, e.g.,  41 CFR
60-1.4(b)).  We are  informed by  EPA's office of Civil Rights
and Urban Affairs  that this  interpretation  is concurred  in  by
the Office  of Federal Contract Complaince.   In  the event
additional  problems  arise with regard  to particular contracts
under  reimbursement grants,  it  should  be noted  cuat cue  j_,abor
-------
                            10

Department's regulations authorize the Director of the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance to ".  .  . exempt any
agency . . . from requiring the inclusion of any or all of
the equal opportunity clause . . . when he deems that special
circumstances in the national interest so require."  41 CFR
60-1.5(b).

     5.  Historic preservation.  The National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470 e_t seq) requires the
agency, prior to grant award, to "take into account" the
impact of the Federal assisted activity on historical sites
and objects included in a National Register developed by
the Department of Interior.  In addition, the agency must
also afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
an opportunity to comment on the action.  We believe that
State review can provide information necessary for review of
any situation in which uncompleted construction or site
acquisition may affect an historical site.  No useful purpose
would be served by reviews of historical dislocations which
have occurred prior to grant award.

     6.  Clearinghouse review.  Section 204 of the Demonstra-
tion Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
3334) and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968  (42
U.S.C. 4201 et seq), as implemented by OMB Circular A-95,
require submission of Federal applications for grants for
treatment works construction assistance to certain clearing-
houses for review.  The purpose of the review is to assure
coordination of local, State and Federal planning, and as such
the impact is totally prospective.  Where construction of a
project has already been initiated (as must be the case in
order for a project to be eligible for a reimbursement grant)
clearinghouse review would serve no useful purpose.  It is our
opinion, accordingly, that clearinghouse review is not re-
quired in the case of Sec. 206 grant awards, except in those
cases where such review is required pursuant to State or local
law.

     7.  Flood insurance.  Section 102 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973  (P.L. 93-234)  (FDPA)  prohibits the
approval after March 1, 1974 of any federal financial assist-
ance for acquisition or construction in any flood hazard area
in which flood insurance is then available, unless the buildig
or personal property to which such assistance relates is
covered by flood insurance for its entire useful life, in an
amount at least equal to its cost or the maximum limit of
coverage available, whichever is less. "Financial assistance
-------
                           11

for acquisition or construction purposes" is defined in
§3 (a) (4) of this Act to include "any form of financial
assistance which is in whole or in part for the acquisition,
construction, ... of any .  .  .  building . . ., and for any
[personal property] .  . .  contained or to be contained there-
in .  .  . ."  "[F]inancial assistance" is also defined to
include any form of grant, payment or rebate.  §3(a)(3).
Accordingly, reimbursement under §206 of the 1972 FWPCA is
included in the definition of financial assistance under the
Flood Disaster Protection Act.   Since the federal financial
assistance is in the form of reimbursement of expenditures for
acquisition and construction purposes, the FDPA is applicable.

     Therefore, the following grant condition must be
included in any grant awarded under §206:

          The grantee agrees to acquire and maintain
          any flood insurance made available to it
          under the National Flood Insurance Act of
          1968, as amended, in an amount at least
          equal to the total eligible project costs
          or to the maximum limit of coverage made
          available under the National Flood Insurance
          Act of 1968, as amended, whichever is less
          for the entire useful life of the project.
          Provided that this condition shall not be
          applicable if, on the date of grant award,
          flood insurance was not available pursuant to
          the Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
          for property in the project location or if the
          property is covered under State policy of self-
          insurance approved under such Act.

If Sec. 206 grant agreements have already been approved  (after
March 1, 1974) without this condition, no further grant pay-
ment may be made until such condition is incorporated by grant
amendment or amendment of the Sec. 206 regulations, or both.
Determination of compliance with this condition may be accomplished
in conjunction with the Sec. 206 audit.

     8.  Copeland Act.  A portion of the Copeland Act relates
to "kickbacks" from public works employees, the inducement
of which can have criminal consequences.  18 U.S.C. 874.  The
remaining provisions of the Act require contractors and sub-
contractors to submit weekly statements of wages paid to
employees.  40 U.S.C. 276c.  The statute, and its implement-
ing  regulations  (29 CFR 3.1 et seq.) are designed to aid in
enforcement of the minimum wage provisions of the Davis-Bacon
 (see discussion under A-14 above).  Generally,  40 U.S.C. 276c
-------
                           12

will be implementable only for contracts and subcontracts
awarded after the date of reimbursement grant award.

                       CONCLUSION

     The foregoing requirements constitute all of the
Federal requirements which are applicable, in our opinion,
to the award and administration of the Sec. 206 reimbursement
grant awards in the second category first mentioned in this
memorandum.  You should note that the requirements mentioned
in Parts (B) and (C), above, are also applicable to the
first category of grants, i.e., those where there has been a
prior grant award or Federal approval.  For exa ,^le, if a
Sec. 8 grant was awarded in 1968 for a project, the Relocation
Act procedures would not then have been applicable, since
that statute had not yet been enacted; however, the award of
Sec. 206 assistance at this time constitutes a Federal action
which has the effect of making the Relocation Act applicable
to relocations effected after January 1, 1971, even though
the Relocation Act had not previously applied to the project.
The procedures discussed above would be applicable, but we would
expect that such instances would be infrequent.

     We would call to your attention, with respect to Sec. 206
award and payment procedures, the following provisions of
Sec. 3 of Public Law 93-207  (emphasis added):

          "*** Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
          (d) of such section 206, (1) the Administrator is
          authorized to make interim payments to each such
          project for which an application has been approved
          on the basis of estimates of maximum pro rata
          entitlement of all applicants under section 206(a)
          . . . .  Upon completion by the Administrator of
          his audit and approval of all projects for which
          an application has been filed under subsection (a)
          of such Section 206, the Administrator shall,
          within the limits of appropriated funds, allocate
          to each such qualified project the amount remaining,
          if any, of its total entitlement.  *** In no event,
          however,  shall any payments exceed the Federal share
          of the cost of construction incurred to the date of
          the voucher covering such payment plus the Federal
          share of the value of the materials which have been
          stockpiled in the vicinity of such construction in
          conformity to plans and specifications for the
          project."
-------
                            13

In the accompanying November 29,  1'973 House Report (No.  93-680),
there is the following additional comment (emphasis added):

          "*** it has become evident that many eligible
          recipients would be forced to incur expenses and
          delays in new projects  or risk failure of projects
          under construction if payments were made only  after
          complete review and determination on all applica-
          tions.  The large number of applications for
          reimbursement will require extensive processing
          by the Environmental Protection Agency before  full
          payment on each can be  made.  Section 3 of the
          legislation authorizes  preliminary interim reim-
          bursement of funds to projects which can be easily
          approved on the basis of available documentation
          pending final processing of all projects.  This
          would include nearly all projects for which there
          has been any Federal financial assistance in the
          past, from the Environmental Protection Agency or
          other source.  This will prevent undue disruption
          in community plans and  also facilitate an orderly
          cash flow by the United States Government.  It is
          expected that the Environmental Protection Agency
          will immediately implement the interim payment
          provisions of this section."

     We are aware that EPA is under considerable pressure
from Congress, state agencies, and eligible municipalities to
expedite Sec. 206 payments.  While the agency has no discretion
concerning the applicability of Federal requirements discussed
in this memorandum, it may be possible to ease the administra-
tive burden of such requirements  upon grantees and this agency.
We will be pleased to assist in developing alternative procedures,
if any are suggested, to facilitate compliance with applicable
Federal requirements.  In order to accomplish the purposes of
Sec. 101(f) of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments, which emphasize a
national policy of "drastic minimization of paperwork," we
recommend that emphasis should be placed upon record retention
by grantees and examination of grantee records upon audit,
rather than requiring the submission of copies of documents
(such as entire construction contracts), unless such submissions
are absolutely required to determine eligibility or quantum
questions.  It may be necessary to defer payment upon projects
in the second category until completion of an audit, unless
entitlement and quantum are adequately demonstrated by the
grantee.
-------
     Ti
    rj    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    *                       WASHINGTON. DC  20460
                                      3'1        PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS  MEMORANDUM PRM 75-
                                                 PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                                 NO.  PG-31

TO     :   All  Regional  Administrators
          Attn:   Director,  Air and Water Programs Division

FROM   :   Harold P.  Cahill, Jr.,  Di
          Municipal  Constructi6n  Di

SUBJECT:   Obligation,  Recovery and Reallotment of Contract Authority Funds


     Allocated FY-73 funds, which are  unobligated as  of close  of business
on June 30, 1974, will  be withdrawn on July 1, 1974,  and immediately
reallotted to those  States  which  used  their full  allotment.  Reallotment
will be on the basis of the ratio used in making  the  last allocation --
viz., the percentages used  in formulating the FY-75 State allotments.

     The above reallotment procedure applies equally  to FY-73  funds which
were obligated prior to July 1, 1974,  withdrawn,  and  remain  unobligated
as of close of business June 30,  1974.  As you know,  present procedures
imposed on EPA for reallotting recovered funds (from  FY-73 and prior year
allotments) necessitate approximately  six to eight weeks "turn around"
time.  Although the  Office  of Resources Management is currently attempting
to get relief from this delaying  procedure, it is important  to recognize
that, when considering the  deobligation of FY-73  funds, FY-73  recovered
funds "caught" in the reallotment procedure, if ncrt obligated  by 6/30/74,
will be reallotted as noted in the paragraph above.

     All  FY-73 funds reallotted after June 30, 1974,  will retain their
FY-73 identification and will be  available for reobligation  in the same
manner as obligations made  from FY-74 allotments. However,  reallotted
funds should be obligated on the  first grant offer or offers made  following
reallotment.  As a general  rule,  in obligating construction  grant  funds,
Regions are expected to use the oldest year's allotments first.  However,
where regulations or policy dictate otherwise, or where conditions warrant
a departure from this rule, the exercise of prudent Regional judgment  is
expected.
-------
     FY-74 funds, after the close of business on 6-30-74,  will  be withdrawn
and reallotted.  This annual withdrawal  and reallotment is an accounting
procedure implemented for the purpose of improving fiscal  controls.   Upon
reallotment, the only change will be that of the allowance and account
numbers.  The status and amount of each State's FY-74 account will remain
the same.  Revised Regional/State FY-74 allowance and account numbers, to
be used beginning July 1, 1974, will be issued by the Office of Resources
Management in advance of that date so that the obligation  of available
FY-74 funds can continue uninterrupted.   Until 6-30-74, recovered FY-74
funds, unlike FY-73 and prior year allotments, can be immediately reobligated.
However, beginning July 1, 1974, recovered FY-74 funds must be reallotted
before they can be reobligated.

     FY-75 funds recovered prior to July 1, 1974, are not  subject to
reallotment on 6-30-74 and, upon recovery, can be immedTately reobligated.

     In connection with FY-75 allotments, all projects, initially funded
with FY-75 funds — regardless of the date of award — must comply with
BPWWT requirements.  Projects initially funded after 6-30-74 with FY-74
or FY-73 funds are not subject to BPWWT requirements.
-------
                                              PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM  75-13
         -                                     Program Guidance Memorandum
   \SS2
      *>oir
                                   PG-32

/    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SUBJECT:  Management of Construction  Grants  Funds             DATE:   APR

FROM:   Alvin L.  Aim
       Assistant Administrator for Planning  and Management
       Roger Strelow
       Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Water Programs

TO:  Regional Administrators

          The purpose of this memorandum is to announce a  revision  of Agency
     policy to permit the discretionary use of Title  II contract  authority  for
     funding grant increases for cost overruns on Section  8 projects, except
     those projects that are eligible for funding under Section 206 of
     PL 92-500.   This memorandum and the attached documents supersede the following:

          -  memorandum on Management of Construction Grant Funds from
             Messrs. Aim and Sansom to Regional Administrators, dated
             December 7, 1973,

          -  Office of Resources Management, Policy and Procedure Memorandum
             #9, dated December 7, 1973, and

          -  where applicable, opinions of the Office of General  Counsel
             dated November 16, 1972, March 23, 1973, and  July 17,  1973.

     Revised Legal Opinion

          Attachment I is the revised legal opinion which  indicates that we
     now find that Section 4(c) of PL 92-500 provides the  discretionary authority
     to use Title II contract authority to fund grant increases for cost over-
     runs on Section 8 projects not eligible under Section 206.   This opinion
     reverses earlier opinions which found that Title II contract authority
     could not be used for Section 8 projects and which determined  Agency
     policy as delineated in the December 7, 1973 memoranda cited above.

     Revised Policy

          Pursuant to this revised legal opinion, we have  revised and are
     hereby issuing Office of Resources Management Policy  and Procedures
     Memorandum I9A (Attachment II).
-------
                                   -  2  -


Discussion of Revised Policy

     Since our policy issuance of December  7,  1973,  we  have  been  advised
by the regions that, in many States,  there  currently are,  or are  likely
to be, insufficient unobligated 1972  and  prior-yea;  funds.  (include g
potential recoveries of such funds) to  cover all  Section 8 project cost
overruns.  This has resulted in our not being  able to provide grant increases
to certain projects where bids substantially exceed the estimated costs.   In
some cases, communities have felt forced  to give  up their  Section 8 grants
and reapply under Title II.   Also, the  regions have reached, or will  reach,
the point where eligible grant increases  for change orders during construc-
tion cannot be approved within available  1972 and prior-year funds.  The use
of Title II contract authority to supplement available 1972 and prior-year
funds, as provided in this policy revision, will  provide  a means  to solve
these problems.

     We wish to emphasize that the intent of this revised policy is that
Title II contract authority is available  to supplement available 1972 and
prior-year funds for cost overruns.  Available 1972 and prior-year funds
must be used first and before Title II  contract authority can be used for
Section 8 cost overruns.  Also, and equally important, we are continuing
our previous policy (see December 7,  1973 memoranda) of maximizing the
availability of 1972 and prior-year funds through the recovery of funds
where possible, particularly from projects that are not under construction
without good justification within two years after the grant award.  In short,
our policy is to use Title  II contract authority only when and where 1972 and
prior-year funds are not available or cannot be made available through recov-
eries.  When Title  II contract authority is used, it should be taken from
the five percent reserve for overruns required under 40 CFR-35.915(g).

     Our policy prohibits the use of 1972 and prior-year  funds for Title  II
projects.  It also  prohibits, on grounds of equity, the use of either Title II
contract authority  or 1972  and prior-year funds for grant increases for changes
in project scope.   Such  changes  in scope should be  handled as separate projects-
applied  for,  funded and  processed  under Title II.

Funding  of Section  206  Projects

     The legal  opinion  and  our policy  prohibits the  use of  either Title  II
contract authority  or  1972  and prior-year  funds for the reimbursement of
projects eligible  under Section  206  of PL  92-500  since it is  clear that
Congress intended  that  such reimbursements  should  be exclusively funded
with monies  authorized  under and appropriated for Section 206.
-------
                                  - 3 -


     We expect project cost overruns (by virtue of change orders)  subse-
quent to January 31, 1974, on active Section 206 projects.   The revised
policy treats these increases as potential  additional  demands on Section
206 monies and prohibits the use of either Title II contract authority
or 1972 and prior-year funds for grant increases to cover these cost
overruns.

Funding of Section 202 Requirements

     The revised policy does not permit the use of Title II contract
authority to bring grants, eligible under Section 202  of PL 92-500, up
to 75 percent Federal funding.  Only 1972 and prior-year funds may be used
for this purpose.  The revised policy does permit, however, the use of
either Title II contract authority or 1972 and prior-year funds for grant
increases for cost overruns on projects eligible under Section 202.  These
grant increases must be made at the percentage reached through application
of Section 202; that is, either 75 percent or that percentage reached
through the application of waivers.

Mixing of 1972 and  1971 Funds

     The December 7, 1973 memoranda cited above prohibited the use of 1972
funds on 1971 and prior-year projects.  This previous  policy is rescinded.
Under the revised policy, 1972 and prior-year funds can be used interchangably
for grant increases on any Section 8 project except those eligible under
Section 206.

Termination of Old Projects

     The December 7, 1973 memoranda directed the termination of Section 8
projects which had been ir, a preconstruction stage for two years or more.
This policy remains in effect and is to continue to be implemented.  More-
over, projects in the preconstruction stage should be  continually monitored;
and, when conditions dictate the need for an earlier (than 24 months) termina-
tion, this action should be initiated with State concurrence.

     Exceptions can be granted to permit some projects to remain in the
preconstruction stage in excess of 24 months.  Requests for waivers for addi-
tional time, based on prudent justifications, must be addressed to the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Water Program Operations and contain revised pre-
construction schedules which the Regions will enforce.  Grantees under enforce-
ment orders can be expected to be granted reasonable time extensions.
-------
                                   - 4 -


Effective Date

     The revised policy and procedures announced herein become effective
immediately.  These are always open to comment, however.  If you should
have problems, questions or comments, you may contact Mr. Harold Cahill,
Municipal Waste Water Systems Division or Mr. Gary Dietrich, Associate
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Resources Management.

Attachments
-------
      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                       WASH.NGTON, D.C. 20460              ATTACHMENT I
                           Apr. 18, 1974


                                                 OFFICE  OF  ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM                                       AND  GENERAL  COUNSEL

SUBJECT:  Use of Funds Authorized or Appropriated under
            Section 207 of the 1972 FWPCA  Amendments  to
            Fund Overruns on Grants Awarded Under Section
            8 of the Former FWPCA

FROM:       Alan G. Kirk II sigaea
            Assistant Administrator
              for Enforcement and General  Counsel  (EG-329)

TO:         John T. Rhett
            Deputy Assistant Administrator
              for Water Program Operations (AW-446)
      You have requested an opinion on the following  question

                              Question

      Does Section 4(c), Federal  Water Pollution  Control Act  Amend-
ments of 1972, authorize use of Title II  funds  authorized  or
appropriated under Section 207 to fund grant overruns on Section  8
projects?

                               Answer

      Yes.  Section 4(c) of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments permits
utilization of 1973 and later contract authority  allocations
and appropriations thereunder for monetary increases  necessary
to fund Section 8 grant overruns.  However, funding of these
increases is not mandatory.

                             Section 4(c)

            Section 4(c) provides:

                "(c)  The Federal Water Pollution Control
            Act as in effect immediately  prior  to the
            date of enactment of this Act  shall remain
            applicable to all grants made  from  funds
            authorized for the fiscal year ending
-------
             June 30, 1972,  and prior fiscal  years,
             including any increases in the monetary
             amount of any such grant which may be
             paid from authorizations for fiscal  years
             beginning after June 30, 1972, except
             as specifically otherwise provided in
             section 202 of the Federal Water Pollution
             Control Act as  amended bv this Act and
             in subsection (c)  of section 3 of this
             Act."

Section 4(c) originated in Section 4(c) of H.R. 11896;
there was no comparable provision in S. 2770.

      The March 11, 1972 report (Report No. 92-911,  92d
Cong., 2d Sess.) which accompanied H.R. 11896 explained
the foregoing provision, which  was enacted into law
without change from the same provision in H.R. 11896,
as follows:

                "Subsection (c) of section 4 provides
             that the existing  Federal Water Pollution
             Control Act will remain applicable to all
             grants made from Fiscal year 1972 funds
             (and prior year funds) including increases
             in the monetary amount of any such grant
             which may be paid  from fiscal year 1973
             funds  (or later year funds).  An exception
             to this would be made for the hijher cost
             sharing permitted  under section 202 of  the
             Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
             amended by section 2 of this bill.

             "The Committee notes that there may
             be publicly owned treatment works presently
             under construction and receiving Federal
             assistance under section 8 of the existing
             law where it may be later determined that
             the Administrator underestimated the eligible
             costs of construction.  Subsection(c) would
             permit the Administrator to pay the grantee
             the remaining eligible amount from Fiscal
             Year 1973 (or later year) funds.  However,
             the payment would be based on the applicable
             cost-sharing arrangements of section 8  and
-------
             not the higher amounts of section 202.
             The grants made from fiscal  Year 1972
             funds being eligible for the higher
             percentages of section 202 would,
             of course, not be limited to the
             amounts specified in section 8 of the
             existing law."
As we have noted, Section 4(c) was carried forward
verbatim into Public Law 92-500, enacted October 18, 1972.
The September 28, 1972 Conference Report (Senate Report
No. 92-1236) noted, at p. 152, that there had been no
comparable provision in the Senate bill, that the conference
provision was the same as the House amendment, and
summarized the provisions of Section 4(c) as follows:

                 "The existing Federal  Water Pollution
             Control Act is made applicable to all grants
             made from funds authorized for fiscal year
             1972 and prior fiscal years, including
             increases in the monetary amount of any
             such grant which may be paid from authorizations
             for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1972,
             except as specifically otherwise provided
             in section 202 of the Federal Water Pollution
             Control Act and section 3(c) of this Act."

                        Discussion

     Section 4 is titled as a "Savings  Provision" in
the statute and conference report.  Generally, the function
of a savings provision is to preserve that which has
previously been done or provided for and not to constitute
new authority for the expenditure of allocated funds.
Section 4(b), which preserves the validity of regulations
issued and actions taken under the prior FWPCA, is an example
of a typical savinqs provision.

     The principal intent of Section 4(c) is the same as
that underlying Section 4(b), namely, to clarify what rules
applied to grants awarded under the authority of Section 8.
Such provision was particularly necessary because Section 3
of the new statute authorized EPA to make additional grants
under Section 8 of the old law after the passage of the new
law.  Undoubtedly, Section 4(c) was included in the Act
to make it clear that grants awarded under the authority
of Section 8 through December 31, 1972, would be governed by
the requirements of the Section 8 program.
-------
     However, section 4(c) contains the phrase:   "any
increase in the monetary amount of any such grant which
may be paid from authorizations for fiscal  years beginning
after June 30, 1972 . .  .  ."An examination of the legislative
history takes this phrase out of the context of a savings
provision, and constitutes, if it is to be  given its literal
interpretation, authority to divert Title II funds,
authorized and appropriated for the principal  purpose of
making Title II construction grants, to payment of grant
overruns on old section 8 projects.  (See section 207,
FWPCAA.)

     We believe a narrow interpretation should be
placed upon this phrase, since it appears to be in
derogation of the intention of Congress to  utilize this
fund for new projects.  For example, state  allocations
for Title II funds are based upon needs surveys for new
construction and not for funding previously approved construction.
To the extent that these funds are used for previously ap-
proved construction projects, new projects  now on priority lists
or requesting listing thereon will be delayed in funding.  We
note, however, that utilization of Title II contract authority
and appropriations is already occurring in  those instances
where a Section 8 project, which has experienced a substantial
overrun, is "split" into two projects to permit funding of a
portion of the construction from Title II contract authority.

     It is necessary to examine the provisions of Section 206
in further interpreting the intent of Congress in passing
Section 4(c).  Section 206 was, in our opinion, deliberately
designed to be the sole source of reimbursement to Section 8
grantees (and to non-grantees) who proceeded to construction
either with grants at a lower percentage than the law then
allowed or with no grant at all.

     Section 206(e) provides in pertinent part:

        "The authorizations contained in this subsection
        shall be the sole source of funds for reimburse-
       ments authorized by this section."

     Section 206(d) provides a system of allocating the Section
206(e) funds among all claimants therefor.   Section 206(c)
provides that applications for reimbursement under Section 206
may be revised from time to time.  Thus Section 206 provides
not only for grant increases to raise the percentage of the
original grant, but also to fund grant overruns at the higher
-------
percentage, all from funds appropriated under Section 206(e) for
reimbursement.

     Public Law 93-207, passed December 28, 1973, amended
Section 206(e) to increase the authorization to $2,600,000
and amended Section 207 to provide that authorizations
under Section 207 were not to be used to carry out the
provisions of Section 206.

     We conclude, therefor, that those grantees eligible
for Section 206 reimbursement are limited to recovery
of grant overruns from funds allocated for Section 206
reimbursement, and cannot use Section 4(c) as authority
to fund those inadequacies caused by limited funding for
Section 206 projects.

     Therefore, we have determined that

     (1)  Section 4(c) may be used as authority for
funding grant overruns on any Section 8 project which
is not eligible for reimbursement under Section 206, but
such grant overruns must be funded at the original grant
percentage.

     (2)  Section 4(c) may be used as authority to fund grant
overruns on 1972 Fiscal year funded projects, not eligible for
Section 206 reimbursement, at 75  percent of the cost of
construction, as authorized by Section 202.

     (3)  The new Title II regulations are not applicable
to Section 8 grants, whether or not grant overruns on these
projects are funded with Section 207 ( Title II) contract authority
funds.

     (4)  EPA may provide programmatic directions to the Regional
offices and to state pollution control agencies, to implement
this funding option, to the extent that it is deemed necessary
or advisable.  The statute is silent on the issue of whether
the funding of these grant overruns should be given precedence
over projects on the Title II priority lists.  With EPA approval,
a state may elect to fund eligible Section 8 grant overrun
claims  prior to or in conjunction with any other utilization
of FY 73 and later contract authority funds, without amendment
to the Title II priority lists.
-------
     The funding of these overruns is discretionary,  not
mandatory, in the following respects:  Except as otherwise
provided by Section 202, all  funding actions under the
authority of Section 8 are discretionary, since that  statute
authorized grant awards not in excess of certain maximum
percentages; consequently, if a cost overrun is not funded
the effect is to reduce the Federal  share of total actual
project costs, which is permissible  under Section 8.
Also, state agency approval is a prerequisite to utilization
of state allocations, so that the state agency necessarily
has discretion to deny or defer funding of cost overruns
in favor of new projects; see 40 CFR SS 35.840(k), 87 F.R. 11663,
and 35.915(h), 35.935-11, and 35.955.  Finally, timely notice
and approval of project changes is a prerequisite to  considera-
tion of grant amendments to increase grant amounts; for cost overruns
see the nreviouslv cited reaulatinns and 40 CFR SS 30.900 and
30.901.  Failure to comply with these requirements constitutes
a basis for denial of additional Federal assistance.

     For these reasons we have determined that Section 4(c)
affords discretion to fund Section 8 project grant overruns,
but that such funding is not mandatory.  Accordingly, to the
extent that the determinations set forth in this opinion differ
from those set out in opinions of this office on the same subject
dated November 16, 1972, March 23, 1973 and July 17, 1973, those
earlier opinions are superseded.
cc:  Mr. Alvin L. Aim
-------
                                                            Attachment II
                           OFFICE OF RESOURCES MANAGEMENT         ADD * r> 
-------
                                -  2  -
    under Section  206  of PL  92-500,  provided  that:

    -  all available 1972 and  prior-year  funds within  a  State's
       current allocation are  completely  used before using Title  II
       contract authority;

    -  such grant  increases  are  not  used  to  change  the scope  of the
       project (changes in scope of  Section  8 projects must be treated
       as separate projects—applied for, processed and funded under
       Title II; and

    -  such grant increases  are  at the same  percentage as the original
       grant.

    When using Title II contract authority for  Section 8 overruns, the
    five percent reserve required under 40 CFR-35.915(g) should  be used.

2.  Available 1972 and prior-year funds may not be used to fund  Title II
    projects or increases thereto.

3.  Available 1972 and prior-year funds and Title II contract authority
    may not be used to fund grant increases of any kind to Section 8
    projects eligible for funding under Section 206 of PL 92-500.  Only
    monies authorized under and  appropriated for Section 206  may be
    used to fund grant increases to Section 206 projects, including
    grant increases for cost overruns to such projects which  occur
    after January 31, 1974.

4.  Title II contract authority may not be used to increase grants
    eligible under Section 202 of PL 92-500 to 75 percent Federal
    funding.  However, available  1972 and prior-year  funds may be
    used  for this purpose.  Title II contract authority and 1972 and
    prior-year  funds can  be used  for grant increases  for cost overruns
    on Section  202 projects, but  the percentage of the grant increase
    may not exceed the percentage reached through application of
    Section 202.

5.  Grant awards to all  Section 8 projects which have been or will  be  in
    a preconstruction  stage for more than twenty-four (24) months are
    to be terminated by  the Regional Administrator unless a waiver  is
    requested  and approved  by the Deputy Assistant Administrator  for
    Water Programs Operations.
-------
                                      -  3  -


     6.   Funds recovered from the deoblig.ation  of  awards  made  in  any  fiscal
         year prior to the fiscal year in  which the  deobligation  is made
         must be first reapportioned  by  the  Office of  Management  and  Budget
         before they can be and are made available for reobligation.   This
         applies to 1972 and prior-year  funds  as well  as  Title II contract
         authority.

     7.   All  recovered 1972 funds and recovered Title  II  contract authority
         will be credited to the allocations of the  same  States from  which
         the  funds are recovered.  All recovered 1971  and prior-year  funds,
         except 1964, 1965 and 1966 funds, will be credited to the allowance
         of the same Region from which such  funds  are  recovered,  and  the
         Regional  Administrator will  have  the  discretion  to determine how
         these recoveries are credited to  the  States within his Region.   All
         recovered 1964, 1965 and 1966 funds will  revert  to the Treasury  and
         will not be reissued to the  Regions.   At  such times in the future,
         when available 1972 and prior-year  funds  within  a State's allocation
         exceed its potential needs for cost overruns, these funds will  be
         reallocated to States having cost overrun needs  which cannot be  satis-
         fied with their available 1972  and  prior-year funds.

IV.   Procedure for Recoveries

     1.   At such times as a grant decrease or  withdrawal  is made against
         grants awarded in a fiscal year prior to  the  fiscal year in  which
         the  grant decreases or withdrawal occurs, the Regional Financial
         Management Officer should take appropriate  action to deobligate
         the  respective funds and record these deobligations in the financial
         management information system.   This  procedure applies to grants
         awarded with both Title II contract authority and 1972 and prior-
         year funds.

     2.   As funds are deobligated, the Regional Financial Management Officer
         should request their recovery and reissuance  by the Budget Operation
         Division of the Office of Resources Management.   This request should
         verify that the deobligation(s) has been  accomplished and properly
         recorded and should list the amount(s) of each year's funds deobli-
         gated from each State(s) so that, when the  funds are recovered
         (reapportioned), they can be reissued to  the  account of the same
         State(s).  The Regional Administrator has the prerogative of
         redistributing recoveries of 1971 and prior-year funds  (except 1964,
         1965 and 1966 funds which revert  to the Treasury); therefore, the
         request need not specify how the  recovered  funds are to be reissued
-------
                                    -  4 -
        to Individual  State accounts.

    3.   Upon receipt of requests, the  Budget Operations Division will
        seek reapportionment of the deobligated funds from the Office  of
        Management and Budget.   When reapportiioned,  the Division will  reissue
        the funds in accordance with the specifications of the request.

V.  Savings Provisions

    From time-to-time, the Office of Resources Management may find it
    necessary to withhold, withdraw, or place additional constraints or
    controls on fund allowances issued under the foregoing policies and
    procedures in order to comply with provisions of authorizing or
    appropriating legislation, directives of the Office of Management
    and Budget, or other external requirements.
                                  Richard Redenius
                             Deputy Assistant Administrator
                                for Resources Management
-------
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                    WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                                            May  10,  1974
                                      PROGRAM  REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-14
                                            PROGRAM  GUIDANCE  MEMORANDUM
                                            NO.  PG-33
SUBJECT:  Grant Funds and Project Segmenting

FROM   :  Harold P. Cahill, Jr.,  Direct
          Municipal Construction  Dlvisi

TO     :  All Regional Administrators
          Attn:  Director, Air and Water Programs  Division
     The passage of P. L. 93-243 enables a construction grant to be
awarded to a segment of a project without regard to operability.
Regulations Implementing this legislation have been included in
Title II Regulations, paragraphs 35.930-4 and 35.935-1.  The
legislation and regulations provide an alternate course of action
in those circumstances where the construction of an extremely
large project would result in program scheduling difficulty for
the State in the management of its total grant program.  The
provisions should enable a State's program to move ahead when
its priority list is being blocked by certain project or projects.

     Segmenting prudently administered should prove beneficial  to
the management of State programs.  However, in undertaking the
segmenting of a project it is important that both the State and
municipality recognize that such a step must be taken within the
framework of the law and regulations of which it is a part.
It is essential to insure that (a) all grants are awarded at
the 75% level.  Under no circumstances can a grant be awarded
for less than 75% of the eligible cost of the project; (b) the
project must be comprised of a discrete and meaningful contract
or sub-contract; and (c) the awarding of a grant to a segmented
project in no way binds the Federal Government to funding the
remaining segment or segments comprising the total project.
Moreover, when an applicant undertakes a segment of a project
and receives a grant award for that segment, he is committed to
the completion of both an operable treatment works and the
complete sewage treatment system of which the segment is a part.
-------
     Therefore, each construction grant (Step 3 grant)  awarded  for a
segmented project must contain a statement embodying the above  and
that which is specifically provided for in paragraphs 35.930-4  and
35.935-1  of the Title II Regulations.

     The following statement therefore shall  be included as a part
of any Step 3 construction grant for a segmented project.

     "The grant awarded is for 75% of a segment of a total  project.
     In accepting this award, the grantee agrees to complete the
     construction of the operable treatment works (see 35.905-15)
     and complete waste treatment system of which the project is
     a part (see 35.930-4) and, the grantee further understands and
     agrees that the Federal Government is not committed to participate
     in the funding of the remaining part or parts of the operable
     portion of the system or of the complete system (see 35.935-1)."
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Class Deviation—Use of Force Account Work       DATE.  May 7, 1974
on Construction Grant Projects        PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-15
                                  ned ,           PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
Alexander J. Greene, Director  s g               PG-34
Grants Administration Division (PM-216)

Regional Administrators

     The construction grant regulations  (40 CFR 35.935-2(a) pub-
lished February 11, 1974) permit the use of force account only for
Step 1 or Step 2 infiltration/inflow work for which the Regional
Administrator has given prior written approval and segments of
Step 3 work, the cost of which is estimated to be less than
$25,000.  Many grantees possess the capability to perform other
phases of work generally connected with  construction grant projects.

     A deviation from the provisions of  40 CFR 35.935-2(a) relating
to the use of force account on construction projects is approved.
The effect of this deviation is to allow the use of force account
for any Step 1, 2 or 3 work for which the Regional Administrator has
given prior written approval based on the grantee's demonstration
that (1) he possesses the necessary competence required to accomplish
such work and (2) the work can be accomplished more economically by
the use of the force account method.

     This section will be modified accordingly when the Title II
regulations are amended.
            ,/x/ Concur  -  No  comment
                                                  Concur - No comment
           /__/  Concur with  comment
                (See  attached)
                                             J~~J  Concur with comment
                                                  (See attached)
           / /  Non-concur
                (See  attached)
                                            / /   Non-concur
                                                  (See attached)
                  Signeu
           Charles Elkins
           Acting Assistant Administrator
           for Water and Hazardous Materials
                                                  Alvin L.  Aim
                                                  Assistant Administrator
                                                  for Planning and Management
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Approval of Class Deviation - Use of Force Account
Work on Construction Grant Projects—BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 30, 1974
           Alexander  J.  Greene
           Director,  Grants Administration Division  (PM-216)
           Alvin  L.  Aim
           Assistant Administrator  for Planning and Management  (PM-208)

           James  L.  Agee
           Acting Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials  (HM-556)

               Section  35.935-2(a) of the construction grants  regulations
           published on  February  11,  1974, restricts the use of force account
           to  Step 1 or  Step  2  infiltration/inflow work for which the Regional
           Administrator  has  given  prior written approval and segments of
           Step 3 work,  the cost  of which is estimated to be under $25,000.
           Two Regional  Administrators and the Director, Municipal Construction
           Division, have requested deviation from this provision indicating
           that many grantees do  maintain well trained personnel on a normal
           work staff  basis who are capable of performing phases of work
           generally connected  with construction projects.  Requiring these
           grantees  to award  separate contracts for such work would prove
           more costly and inconvenient to them and could actually cause some
           project delays.

               The  requested class deviation would allow any Step 1, 2, or  3
           work to be  accomplished  by force account by a grantee who has
           demonstrated  to the  Regional Administrator's satisfaction that he
           possesses the  necessary  competence required to accomplish such
           work and  that  by utilizing the force account method, the work could
           be  accomplished more economically than by other methods.

               We recommend your concurrence in this deviation.

           Attachment
 EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Request for Deviation to Subsection 40 CFR,
35.935-2(a) Title II Construction Grants
   Regulations
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Construction Division (AW-447)

Alexander J.  Greene, Chief
Grants Administration Division (PM-216)
DATE: April 1, 1974
                In accordance with  40  CFR,  Section  30.1001,  a  deviation  from
           subsection  35.935-2(a) of the  Construction  Grants Regulations  is
           being requested.   This subsection  relates to  the  use  of  force  account
           work for Step  1  and certain parts  of  Step 2 projects.  Most of Step  2
           and all  of  Step  3, construction  applicants  are  not  permitted  use of
           force account  procedures.

                It is  our opinion that this requirement  reflects  an  undue and
           unwarranted penalty on certain applicants.  Many  applicants maintain
           well  trained personnel on a normal work  staff basis that  would be
           capable of  carrying out  phases of  work generally  connected with our
           construction projects.   It  is  therefore, more costly  and  inconvenient
           for them to have  to place this work under separate  contracts.   The
           requirement could actually  cause certain projects to  be  delayed.

                We believe  the Regional Administrator  can  make a  most adequate
           assessment  of  an  applicant's competence  to  carry  out  force account
           work in total  or  any part thereof.  On this basis we  recommend that
           a class deviation be allowed to  subsection  35.935-2(a) to allow any
           Regional  Administrator to permit force account  work to be completed
           by any grantee for any project,  or segment  of any step work,  provided
           the grantee demonstrates  to the  Regional Administrator's  satisfaction
           that such procedure will  result  in a  savings  to the project and thus
           to the Federal share.

                Two Regional  attachments  containing this request  are enclosed
           for your additional  information.
           Attachments  (2)
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                          JUN  3   1974
                                        PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-16
                                                  PROGRAM  GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                                  PG-35
SUBJECT:  Title II Regulations,  Section 35.915(i) —
          Reserve for Step 1  and Step 2 Projects^
FROM:     Harold P.  Cahill,  Jr.
          Director,  MunicipaTx^g^Fu'c^ti^n^Divfsion  (ftti-447)

          Mark Pisano
          Director,  Wa

TO:       Regional  Administrators
          ATTN:  Air and Water Programs
     This memorandum addresses the purpose of the subject regulations
which permit a State to retain up to^ 10 percent of its yearly construc-
tion allotment as a reserve for grant assistance for Step 1  and  Step 2
projects whose selection for funding is to be determined by  the  State
subsequent to approval  of its project list.

     This action is intended to provide, where needed, a contingency fund
for meeting unexpected  situations that may develop subsequent to the time
a State's priority list has been established.  For example,  court enforce-
ment orders or urgent disaster situations may dictate that projects, not
within the priority lists funding cut off, be initiated more rapidly than
planned.  Also, Step 1  projects may be completed earlier than anticipated
and an (up to) 10 percent reserve could be available to fund follow-on
Step 2 projects that might otherwise be delayed.

     Determining which step or steps of a project will be funded by the
State with each fiscal  years' allotment is an important element  of the
State's grants management program.  A smooth flow of projects in the
construction "pipeline" requires that considerable attention be  given to
step funding during the development of a priority list.  Clearly, however,
not all project needs can be forseen at the outset.  Accordingly, in
addition to permitting the amending of priority lists to accommodate
commonly expected changes, the regulations enable a State to set aside a
portion of its allotment in anticipation of having to readily initiate
less predictable, urgently needed projects.  This reserve must be in-
corporated in the State's priority list at the time approvals are sought.
-------
     It should be noted that the State has the option to maintain a
reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 projects for the full allowable period
(up to eighteen months after the date of allotment) or to discontinue
it at any time.

     This section of the regulations was added to give States the flex-
ibility required to more effectively manage their overall construction
grant program.  Interpretations need to be made commensurate with this
purpose.
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                                                     June  5, 1974
                                         PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM  PRM  75-17
                                              PROGRAM  GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                              PG-36
SUBJECT:   Construction of Pretreatment or Treatment Facilities
          for Municipal  Utilities
FROM:     Harold P.  Cahill,  Jr.^      _
          Director,  Municipal  Cvnstrticfcion  Division     ^/

TO:       Regional Administrators
          ATTN:   Air and Water Program  Directors
     Questions have been raised regarding  the  continuation  of our  practice
of awarding grants for sludge handling,  pretreatment,  and/or overall
treatment facilities constructed at municipal  water treatment plants--
separate from the basic municipal  waste  water  treatment system.  This
practice, approvable under PL 84-660 (as amended),  1s  Inconsistent with
the provisions of PL 92-500.

     Pretreatment (and treatment)  facilities,  constructed  solely to meet
single, special purpose situations, viz.,  to control pollutants  which cannot
be handled within the overall municipal  system,  are not the kind of projects
Intended for grant assistance under the  construction grants program.  Such
facilities are to be viewed as an integral  part  of  the utility's design  and
function and their cost, as a capital  cost of  utility  construction.
Accordingly, a separate waste water treatment  facility, constructed at a
municipal utility site, for the sole purpose of  treating or pretreating
pollutants eminatlng from that utility,  is not to be considered  eligible for
grant assistance; see 40 CFR 35.925-15.

     Therefore, effective July 1, 1974,  grants for  all such separate
facilities cannot be approved.  Previously approved grants for  projects  of
this nature are not affected by this decision, nor  are Step 3 grants awarded
through June 30, 1974.
-------
SEZP    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             WASHINGTON DC  20460

                                                          SEP 1 7 1974
                                            PROGRAM  REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-1!
                                                PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                                PG-36A
 SUBJECT:  Eligibility of Uastewater Treatment Facilities at Municipally
           Owned Water Treatment Works for Construction Grants
  FROM:     Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Directo
           Municipal Construction Division~ffitf-4~47)

  TO:       Regional Administrators
           ATTN:  Air and Water  Program  Directors
       Program Guidance Memorandum 36,  issued June 5,  1974, gave notice of
  the  termination of the practice of funding wastewater treatment projects
  at water  treatment plants owned by municipalities.   Since the Issuance of
  that memorandum, numerous requests have been received for a more detailed
  explanation of the reasons for this action.  To give added support to
  EPA's position denying the eligibility of municipally owned water treatment
  works for wastewater treatment grants, we are providing the following.  It
  is to be  used as a supplementary attachment to PG-36.

       Section 201(g)(l) of PL  92-500 authorizes the Administrator to make
  grants for the construction of publicly owned treatment works.  Section
  202(a) of the Act provides that the amount of any grant shall be 75% of the
  cost of construction of  the treatment works and regulations have been
  promulgated setting forth standards for determining  construction costs
  eligible  for grant assistance.  In particular, 40 CFR 35.925-15 provides,
  in part,  "That the allowable  project  costs do not include costs allocable
  to the treatment for control  or removal of pollutants in wastes introduced
  into the  treatment works by industrial users unless  the applicant is required
  to remove such pollutants introduced  from non-industrial sources; and that
  the  project is included  in a  waste treatment system, a principal purpose of
  which project and system is the treatment of domestic wastes of the entire
  community, area, region  or district concerned."

       From the above, it  is clear that one test of a  project's eligibility
  for  grant funds is that  it has, as its principal purpose, the treatment of
  domestic  wastes of the entire community, area, region or district concerned.
  A municipally owned utility could not meet this funding test.
-------
     The wastes generated by municipal  water works are generally not
similar to wastes introduced into the treatment works by non-industrial
sources and, accordingly, special facilities are required in order to
properly treat these wastes.  Since the treatment of water for human
consumption is an industrial undertaking, the water company serving a
municipality, whether publicly or privately owned, is in the same position
as any other industrial user of a municipal treatment system introducing
pollutants into the system which require special treatment equipment so
that the wastes will neither impair the system's efficiency nor pass through
insufficiently treated.  This viewpoint is derived from Sections 402 and
307(b) of the Act which prohibit the discharge of pollutants into a municipal
treatment works, which are not susceptible to treatment by such treatment
works or, which would interfere with the operation of such treatment works.

     Under Section 8 of PL 84-660, grant monies were available to munici-
palities for the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the
discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into
waterways.  Under Sections 307 and 402 of the new statute, grant monies  are
available to treat "usual" wastes expected in treatment works, and special
wastes must be removed by the responsible source at its expense.

     To allow grant funds to be used to assist the water supply industry
could lead to similar requests from a wide variety of other municipally
owned facilities such as power plants, airports, mass transportation
facilities, feed lots, etc., operated as public utilities.  Such action
would have the effect of depleting Federal resources intended to support
the construction of waste treatment facilities to serve the total municipality.
-------
    \
     ?    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    f                      WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                               July 9, 1974
                                           PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-19
                                           PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                           NO.  PG-37
TO:       All Regional Administrators
          Attn:  Director, Air and Water Programs Division

FROM:     Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
          Municipal Construction Division

SUBJECT:  Cancelling PG-28                                        "
          User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery System


     Enclosed is a copy of the decision (File B-l66506-7/2/74) of the
Comptroller General of the United States informing that the use of ad
valorem taxes for a user charge system for wastewater treatment works
does not satisfy statutory requirements of Public Law 92-500.  In
accordance with the Comptroller General's decision, no project can be
approved if the grantee proposes to utilize ad valorem tax funds to
satisfy user charge requirements of the Act.

     Effective July 4, 1974, those paragraphs pertaining to "user charges"
in Program Guidance Memorandum No. PG-28 "User Charges and Industrial
Cost Recovery System" are cancelled.  The section on "industrial cost
recovery" is still applicable and will be included in a new program
memorandum to be issued in the near future.

     Grants applications in your office, which propose using ad valorem
taxes for the user charge system, are to be held in abeyance.  Advice
pertaining to steps to be taken on these projects as well as those on
which grant offers have already been made will be issued shortly.
Enclosure
-------
DECISION                          THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
                                  OF THE UNITED STATES
                                  Washington,  D.C.   20548
FILE: B-166506                            DATE:   July 2,  1974

MATTER OF:  Use of ad valorem tax to satisfy statutory requirement
            for a user charge system for water treatment  works.

DIGEST:  Statutory requirement that grantees under Public
         Law 92-500 will  adopt system of charges  assuring that
         each recipient of waste treatment services shall pay
         its proportionate share of treatment works'  operation
         and maintenance costs is not met by use  of ad valorem
         tax since potentially large number of users--i.e.,  tax
         exempt properties— will not pay for any services;  ad
         valorem tax does not achieve sufficient  degree of
         proportionality according to use and hence does  not
         reward conservation of water; and Congress intended
         adoption of user charge and not tax to raise needed
         revenues.

     We have been requested to render a decision  as to the propriety
of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authorizing grant
recipients to meet the user charge requirements of section 204(b)(l)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as amended by
Public Law 92-500, 33 U.S.C. (supp. II) 1284(b)(l), through  the  use
of an ad valorem tax system.  In connection with  the matter, we
have considered the views of EPA and other concerned parties.

     Subsection 204(b)(l) of the FWPCA provides that EPA's Adminis-
trator should not approve any grant for any treatment work after
March 1, 1973, "unless he shall first have determined that the
applicant (A) has adopted or will adopt a system  of charges  to
assure that each recipient of waste treatment services within the
applicant's jurisdiction, as determined by the Administrator, will
pay its proportionate share  of the costs of operation and  maintenance
(including replacement) of any waste treatment services provided by
the applicant; ***."  Subsection (2) provides that the Administrator
shall issue guidelines applicable to payment of waste treatment
costs by industrial and nonindustrial recipients  of waste treatment
services which - -

     "shall establish (A) classes of users of such services,
     including categories of industrial users; (B) criteria
     against which to determine the adequacy of charges imposed
                                -1-
-------
B-166506
       on classes and categories of the users reflecting all
       factors that influence the cost of waste treatment,
       including strength, volume, and delivery flow rate charac-
       teristics of waste; and (C) model  systems and rates  of
       user charges typical of various treatment works serving
       municipal-industrial communities."

       One of the major purposes of the aforequoted provisions of
section 204 was to assure self-sufficiency on the part of the
treatment works.  Within that framework S. Rept. 92-414, dated
October 28, 1971, accompanying S. 2770 states in pertinent  part:

            "Although the committee is aware of the many different
       legal and financial circumstances  that characterize  state
       and local governments and agencies throughout the country,
       the bill directs the Administrator to promulgate guidelines
       for the establishment and imposition of user charge  systems
       as a guide to grant applicants for waste treatment works
       grants.  These guidelines should take into account the
       diversity of legal and financial factors that exist  from
       jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and  each applicant should be
       permitted reasonable flexibility in the design of a  system
       of user charges that meets the unique requirements of his
       own jurisdiction.  As a general rule, the volume and
       character of each discharge into a publicly owned system
       should form the basis of determining the rate at which
       each user should be required to pay.

            "The committee devoted  a great deal of attention to
       the difficult issue posed by the discharge of industrial
       pollutants into publicly owned treatment sysyems. There
       is much to be said for encouraging industrial use of
       public facilities.  Each industrial discharge into a
       public system is one less outfall  that must be monitored,
       and in many cases the economies of scale that character-
       ize public treatment works would permit a net capital
       saving to the economy as a whole,  assuming that the
       alternative to industrial use of public facilities is
       the on-site treatment by industry  of its own wastes.

            "The bill would deal with industrial pollutants in
       this way:  each industrial user of a public system would
       pay a charge that would include not only that share  of
       operating and maintenance costs allocable to such user
       but which would also be sufficient to recover that portion
       of the Federal share of the capital cost of the facility
       allocable to such user.  That portion of the Federal share
       of the capital cost allocable to each industrial user
       would be returned to the federal treasury.
                                  -2-
-------
B-l66506
         "The cororoittee believes that this approach  to the
     issue of industrial use of public facilities  appeared  to
     the committee to be the most reasonable and equitable  one
     that can be devised.   Any scheme that did not provide  for
     full recovery of the Federal share of capital costs  allo-
     cable to industrial users would clearly constitute a
     Federal subsidy of private industry and , more  particularly,
     of those industries that were so situated as  to make use  of
     public facilities and industries producing wastes that are
     compatible with public treatment systems.  Any  other approach
     would discriminate unfairly against those industies  which,
     for whatever reason, were unable to utilize public systems.

         "It may be that the Congress will, at some future  time,
     determine that some form of Federal financial assistance  to
     industry in meeting pollution control costs—whether through
     tax relief, loans, or grants--is appropriate.  The committee
     does not prejudge the propriety or need for such assistance.
     But the committee does conclude that subsidy  of private
     industry through the waste treatment works grant program
     would be haphazard and inappropriate.

         "Discretion is left to the Administrator  and to state
     and local authorities as to the structure of  each indi-
     vidual system of user charges. A difficult problem associ-
     ated with industrial discharges is the calculation of the
     rate of assessing such charges.  Industrial wastes vary
     considerably in their volume and character.  The bill  autho-
     rizes the Administrator to establish guidelines in the
     development of industrial user charge rates,  which will at
     the minimum, consider factors such as strength, volume, and
     delivery flow characteristics of such waste.

         "The recovery of the Federal share of capital costs
     allocable to industry will presumable occur over a rather
     protracted period of time.  Factors that might be taken into
     account in determining the rate of 'pay-back' by industrial
     users should include the term during which any debt incurred
     for the non-Federal share of the capital cost will be retired
     and the term during which each industrial user is expected
     to make use of the facility.  Also, a particular industry
     should repay that portion of the Federal grant that reflects
     its percentage use of the plant's total capacity, which
     should include any firm commitment of increased use of the
     facility by that industry.  The committee does not believe
     it would be wise to require that existing industry's
     capital share be computed on that industry's  share of the
     wastes actually treated when the facility initiated opera-
     tion.  The committee affirmatively concluded  that capital
                               -3-
-------
B-166506
     costs recovered from Industry should not Include  an  interest
     component.

          "It may prove to be the case 1n certain Instances  that
     Individual  Industrial operations  win  conclude that  1t  will
     be more economical to treat their own  wastes than to d1s-
     Charge Into a Public system.  If  and where such instances
     arise. 1t 1s logical to conclude  that  a net saving to the
     taxpayer and to the consumer win result"   It 1s  certainly
     not the intent of the committee to discourage Industrial
     use of public systems.   It Is the judgment of the com1ttee
     that the industrial 'pay-back'  requirement will not  discour
     age such use in most cases.   It is clear that the environ-
     mental costs should be borne by those  who place demands on
     the environment.  User charges carry out this principle."
     (Emphasis added.)

     H.  Rept. 92-911,dated March 11, 1972,  accompanying H.R. 11896
 cates at pages  90-92, in pertinent part:

          "A major new condition for receiving a grant relates
     to the establishment of user charges.   This section  specif-
     ically provides that the Administrator shall not  approve
     any grant for publicly owned treatment works, after  June 30,
     1973 unless the applicant has adopted  or will adopt  a system
     of user charges to assure that each recipient of waste  treat-
     ment services within his jurisdiction, as determined by
     Administrator, will pay its proportionate share of opera-
     tion, maintenance (including replacement)  and expansion
     costs.  The applicant's jurisdiction means his entire service
     area.

          "The Committee believes it is essential to the  successful
     operation by public agencies that a system of fair and  equi-
     table user charges be established.  The Committee recognizes
     that differing circumstances and  conditions'in local  areas
     may call for especially designed  systems and has  therefore
     proposed that the Administrator promulgate general criteria
     and that such general criteria allow for variations  to  meet
     local conditions.  This section contains standards the
     Committee believes should be taken into account by the
     Administrator; foremost among these is the underlying
     objective of achieving a local  system  that is self-
     sufficient.

          " In connection with industrial users of publicly  owned
     systems, the Committee desired to establish within the  user
                             -4-
-------
B-l66506
      charge system an arrangement whereby industrial  users  would
      pay charges sufficient to bear their fair portion of all
      costs including the share of Federal contributions for
      capital construction attributable to that part of the cost
      of constructed facilities attributable to use by industrial
      sources.   It is the Committee's view that it is  inappro-
      priate in a large Federal grant program providing a high
      percentage of construction funds to subsidize industrial
      users from funds provided by the taxpayers at large.
      Accordingly, the bill  imposes  an obligation on  the part  of
      publicly owned systems to incorporate into their user charge
      schedule a component to recover, without interest, that
      proportion of the total Federal grant to the community for
      construction purposes  attributable to industrial users.  The
      committee recognizes that there will be some administrative
      difficulties involved in establishing classes of industrial
      users and has left to  the local system the obligation to  set
      up an effective and equitable system, subject to the approval
      of the Administrator,  inasmuch as the establishment of such
      a system is a precondition to Federal grants.

           "Since one of the objectives of the legislation is the
      development of self-sufficiency among local systems, the
      Committee has recommended that the revenues obtained by
      user charges covering  the Federal contribution attributable
      to the use of the local system by industrial users remain
      with the local system.  The Committee belives, however,
      that these funds should be used by the local system only
      for those purposes related directly or indirectly, to the
      maintenance, operation and development of the system.  The
      Committee strongly opposes rebates to industrial users or
      any other form of a special treatment which would thwart
      the objective of the Committee stated above to prohibit
      Federal subsides to industrial users.

           "Among the purposes for which the Committee believes
      the revenues so received might be used are the following:
      (1) construction, operation, maintenance, repair and
      replacement of sewage systems and for the repayment of
      principal and interest for indebtedness incurred there-
      for  ;  (2) support for monitoring the quantity and quality
      of effluents to the agency's system for industrial,
      commercial, and residential sources; (3) monitoring of
      receiving water to ensure maintenance of adopted water
      quality standards; (4) water pollution control and abatement
      planning, particularly with respect to developing the
      interrelationships between such planning and water
      resources management, air resources management, solid waste
                                   -5-
-------
B-l66506
       management, and land use planning;  (5)  establish,  operate,
       and maintain, where feasible,  central  facilities  for the
       storage and analysis of systemwide  operating  data  to
       promote the most efficient use and  operation  of the  agency's
       interceptors, regulating stations,  pump stations,  and treat-
       ment facilities; (6) enhancement of agency-owned  property  to
       provide community multi-use facilities  over and above the
       basic function of controlling  and abating  water pollution;
       and (7) agency personnel training programs.

            "The following are examples of items  which the  Committee
       believes should not be financed by  such revenues:  (1) facil-
       ities for the pretreatment and monitoring  of  industrial
       waste in order to meet the agency's reserve system require-
       ments; (2)  reductions in user  charges  for  specific categories
       of users, especially industrial  users;  and (3)  payments of
       agency bonds or other long-term indebtedness  outstanding for
       construction financed under the law as  it  heretofore has
       existed.

            "Finally, this section provides that  approval of a
       grant to an interstate compact agency would satisfy  any
       other requirement for congressional authorization."

  The Conference Committee Report basically states that  its
 substitute is the same as the Senate bill as  revised  by  the House
 amendment.  (Senate Rept. 92-1236, September  28, 1972,  pp. 111-112.)

       EPA cites the relevant committee reports as well  as  statements
 by Congressmen Grover and Mizell in  support of their  view  that the
 Administrator is  to promulgate general criteria, taking  into account
 local conditions  which may justify variations of approach  and charge.
 EPA states that the Administrator is required to take into account
 the historical, legal, and financial background  of  the  community.

       To achieve  proportionality between  classes a  surcharge will under
 EPA's proposal, be levied upon a class from which tax revenue is  in-
 sufficient to pay that class's proportionate  share  of operation  and
 maintenance costs attributable to it.   EPA feels that the  statute
 does not address  the issue of proportionality within  classes and  with
 the exception of  cases of gross disproportionality, it  is  not necessary
 to show that each user within a class  is  paying  the same rate as  all
 other users within its class.

       On the other hand, it appears  that  much testimony  was received
 at congressional  hearings in 1970 indicating  that user  charges
                                     -6-
-------
B-l66506
      could provide the economic incentive to improve efficiency and
      reduce the volume of waste produced.  However,  no action was  taken
      on water pollution legislation in 1970.  Congressional  committees
      received similar testimony in 1971  in their consideration of  the
      bill which was subsequently enacted into law.   At that  time,  EPA's
      then Administrator indicated that the Administration believed that
      all communities should operate waste treatment  systems  on a "utility"
      basis with each user paying a fair share of the cost.  We might also
      point out that in the Senate debate over the Conference Report on
      FWPCA, Senator Boggs, a conferee, inserted a statement   into  the
      Congressional Record which reads, in pertinent  part, as follows:

                "The bill requires that a grant recipient estab-
                lish an  equitable user charge system that covers the
                operating, maintenance, and replacement costs of the
                project.  User charges are designed to assure that
                the burden of any system's costs will be spread among
                all users of the system, in relation  to the volume  of
                waste discharge, not financed out of local taxes."
                Cong. Rec., October 4, 1972, p. SI6891.

           Finally, we note that the bill as passed by the Senate had
      provided that the Administrator shall determine that there has been
      adopted "a system of charges to assure that by each category  of
      users of waste treatment services, as determined by the Administra-
      tor, will pay its appropriate share of the costs of operation and
      maintenance."  However, the finally enacted provision provides that
      the Administrator shall not approve any grant until he  has deter-
      mined that the applicant has adopted a system of charges to assure
      "that each recipient of waste treatment services within the appli-
      cant's jurisdiction, as determined by the Administrator, will pay
      his proportionate share of the costs."  In other words, instead of
      charges by each category of users, Congress apparently decided to
      require each recipient of services to pay his proportionate share.

           We agree that the issue is clearly a difficult one to resolve.
      Part of the problem is that in the absence of meters--which no one
      contends are required—it is difficult, if not  impossible, to obtain
      true proportionality within and among the classes of users.  The basic
      difficulty with EPA's position is that the ad valorem system is
      clearly a tax based on the value of the property and, conceptually at
      least, the Congress did not intend that a tax be used to obtain the
      user charges.  In addition, the ad valorem system will  not reach tax-
      exempt property and the users of waste treatment services could
      constitute a relatively significant segment of  the  users of sewage
      systems.  This omission is, in our view, one of the, major failings
      of an  ad valorem  system.  Moreover, ad valorem taxes will reach
                                    -7-
-------
B-l66506
industrial operations and others that do not discharge into a public
sewage system.  Of major importance also is the fact that the ad
valorem tax does not in any way reward conservation of water and this
was clearly an important factor in the congressional adoption of the
user charge.  In addition, as a practical matter, it is difficult to
see how EPA could establish  guidelines imposing varying surcharges in
order to achieve any real degree of proportionality.

     We recognize that alternatives to use of the ad valorem method
may fall short of achieving absolute proportionality.   Nonetheless,
such other methods would appear to provide a degree of proportion-
ality with respect to each recipient of sewer services which seem-
ingly cannot be reached by ad valorem taxes.  As imprecise a measure
as such alternatives might be, they would be more consonant with the
intent of Congress that every user should pay its fair share of
operation and maintenance costs according to its use of the sewage
treatment works and the underlying congressional feeling that the
operation and maintenance of these works should be financed on a
user, and not a tax, basis.  Moreover, the alternative would not
penalize those who do not use the sewage system.

     Accordingly, while the matter is quite complex and not entirely
free from doubt, it is our view that the section 204(b)(l) require-
ment that each recipient of sewer services will pay its proportion-
ate share of the treatment works' operation and maintenance expenses
may not be met through the implementation of an ad valorem tax
system.  We understand from an article in the Environmental Reporter
that EPA's Deputy Administrator has advised several Members of
Congress that if this Office were to question the use of an ad
valorem user charge system, EPA would seek legislative authority
therefor.  We agree that if EPA believes that an ad valorem system
would be appropriate in certain circumstances, it should seek to
obtain statutory authority therefor.
                                   Elmer B. Staats

                                 Comptroller General
                                 of the United States
                                   -8-
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: User Charge Systems
FROM-.    James L. Agee signed
         Acting Assistant Administrator
         for Water and Hazardous Materials
TO:      All Regional Administrators
          DATE: July  16,  1974
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-2(3
   PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
   PG-38
              By Program Guidance Memorandum No. 37 dated July 9, 1974, you were
         advised of the recent Comptroller General  of the United States opinion
         informing that the use of the ad valorem tax base for the development
         of the user charge system for publicly owned waste water treatment
         works did not satisfy statutory requirements of P. L. 92-500 and
         that advice would be issued with respect to steps to be taken on
         those projects for which grant obligations had already been made
         wherein the applicant intended to use the ad valorem tax base in
         the development of a user charge system as well as those grant
         applications pending or in process falling in the same category.

              The following steps are to be taken on the above projects:

              1.  Grant applications in process in your office and those
         subsequently received which propose using the ad valorem tax base
         for the development of the user charge system shall be returned to
         the applicant with the notation that they are in nonconformance with
         the statutory requirements of P. L. 92-500 as established by the
         decision (File B-166506-7/2/74) of the Comptroller General of the
         United States.

              2.  Existing grants falling in the category in question shall be
         amended by supplemental conditions stipulating that the ad valorem
         tax base shall not be used in the development of the user charge
         system applicable to the project.  The grantee should be advised
         that acceptance of the supplemental condition to the grant must be
         executed within 30 days of receipt or action will be initiated to
         withdraw the Federal assistance to the project in the form of the
         existing grant.

              It may be anticipated that in certain cases the grantee may
         initiate legal action to preclude withdrawal or deobligation of
         existing grants.  It is requested that you keep this office
         advised as to anticipated courses of action that may be proposed
         by the communities affected as they become known.

              Concurrent with the above and  in  addition thereto,  the
         Administrator will initiate steps to obtain legislative relief.
 EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
                                        PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-21


     %
    r ?   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    •<^                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

                                                          OCT  ! f, 1974
                                                    PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Overruns, Reserves and Priority  Lists      PG~4J

FROM:      Harold F. Cahill, Jr., Director
          Municipal Construction Division  (WH-447(

TO:       Regional  Administrators
          ATTN:  Air and Water Program Directors
     As a result of rapidly escalating "construction" costs, projects in
some States are experiencing overruns, the totals of which are exceeding
the amounts set aside in the States'  reserves.   Questions have been raised
regarding the States options when this situation occurs.

     Provision for a reserve (for overruns) was incorporated into the
regulations because it was generally agreed that projects under construction
or about to undergo construction, should not be delayed for funding reasons.
EPA would be in an indefensible position if, after diligently processing a
project through its many stages of review and approval, at the point of
construction initiation or during construction, it did not provide sufficient
funds to complete the project.  Therefore, from a management viewpoint, once
a project is approved for a grant offer, its priority for funding is of the
highest order.

     Accordingly, and again,  every effort must be made prior to the award
of a grant offer to establish the most current estimated eligible project
cost.  When overruns do occur, and sufficient funds are lacking in the reserve
to approve the required grant increases, the State may:

     1.  Use funds from the succeeding year's allotment or,
     2.  If the succeeding years allotment has not been allocated,
         defer projects on the lowest end of the fundable portion
         of the priority list to the succeeding year in sufficient
         numbers to free up funds for the overruns and/or
     3.  Negotiate with the grantees experiencing excessive bid costs
         the possible segmenting of their projects to permit the
         initiation of more projects within the funding range of the
         priority list.

     Should the State pursue option "2" above, the deferred projects would
automatically be placed at the head of the succeeding year's priority list.

     Options "1" and "2" may be accomplished by means of a written agreement
between the Regional Administrator and the State.
-------
   \
   5    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460

                                                            NOV  1 8

                       PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-22
                                Program Guidance Memorandum
                                PG- 43

MEMORANDUM

Subject:  Policy Re Retention of Payments

From:     Harold P. Cahill, Dire     r  , ^...
          Municipal Construction &Tv'^i'b'n~(WH-v4$7)

To:       Regional Administrators
     It is EPA policy to optimize the amount and timing of payment
for work performed under Step 3 construction grants and to minimize
retention of amounts otherwise due; see 40 CFR §§30.602-1 and 35.945.
Due to the strained capital and cash-flow positions of contractors,
material suppliers, and equipment manufacturers in the wastewater
treatment construction industry contractors are borrowing funds at
high interest rates due to slow payment for work performed and
subsequently pass this interest cost along in their bids.  EPA must
take all possible appropriate actions t-o maintain liquidity and
optimum cash flow in the industry insofar as EPA grant payments are
concerned, and more importantly, to protect the Government from
these "pass-through" costs the contractors are adding to their bids.

     (1)  To facilitate this policy, bid and contract documents for
Step 3 construction work must make provision for timely periodic pay-
ments, and for limiting retainage to the following:

          (a)  retention of up to 10% of the payment claimed
               until construction is 50% complete;

          (b)  after construction is 50% complete, reduction of
               the retainage to S% of the payment claimed,
               provided that the contractor is making satisfactory
               progress and there is no specific cause for greater
               withholding;
-------
          (c)  when the project is substantially complete (operational
               or beneficial occupancy), the retained amount shall be
               further reduced below 5% to only that amount necessary
               to assure completion;

          (d)  the grantee will accept a cash bond or irrevocable
               letter of credit if offered in lieu of cash
               retainage under  (b), and will accept a cash bond or irrevocable
               letter of credit if offered in lieu of cash retainage  under  (c),
     (2) (a)   The foregoing policy shall be implemented with respect
               to all Step 3 projects for which plans and specifications
               are approved after November 30, 1974.   Appropriate
               provision to assure compliance with this policy must be
               included in the bid documents (see para.  8, below) for
               such projects initially or by addendum prior to the bid
               submission date, and as a special condition (see para.  7,
               below) in the grant agreement or in a grant amendment.

         (b)   For all  previous active projects, the foregoing policy
               shall  be implemented by EPA (through grant amendment -
               see para. 7, below) and the grantee (through contract
               amendment -  see para.  8 below) upon written request to
               the grantee by the contractor.

     (3)  This payment retention policy will  not alter any right of
the grantee under its contract or the right of this agency pursuant to
regulation or the grant agreement to withhold larger amounts  where
there is specific necessity and right to do so.   The  maximum  amount of
EPA retention (10% of the grant amount - see 40 CFR §30.602-1)  shall  be
utilized only in exceptional  cases;  retention should  always  be limited
only to that amount necessary to assure compliance with  a specific
provision of EPA regulations or the grant agreement - except  where non-
payment of greater amounts  is specifically provided for  in EPA regulations,
for example, to obtain compliance with 40 CFR §§35.935-12(c),  35.935-13(a),
or 35.935-15.

     (4)  Payment of the Federal  share should be made to grantees  only
for amounts which the grantee is currently obligated  to  pay.   For  example,
where a grantee is entitled to retain 5% of the  amount of a voucher,
payment should be made by EPA only for the Federal  share of the  vouchered
amount less the amount of the retainage.   The retained amount  should  be
included on a later voucher from the  grantee  at  the time that  the  grantee
becomes obligated to actually pay the retained amount.

     (5)  The grantee must  make payment to its  contractor promptly after
receipt of the Federal  payment.   In  cas«-s where  the grantee unjustifiably
withholds payment to the contractor  of Federal  sums paid to the  grantee,
the grantee must account for and credit to the Federal Government  all
interest earned during the  period of  unjustifiable retention,  in accordance
with 40 CFR §30.603.
-------
     (6)  The foregoing policy will not apply to the extent that it may
be prohibited by any specific requirement of State or local laws or
ordinances.

     (7)  The following clause shall be inserted as a special condition
in all Step 3 grants awarded after November 30, 1974, and by grant
amendment in all previously awarded Step 3 grants covered by the provisions
of either subparagraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (2) above:

          "Prompt Payment.  The grantee agrees to make payment to its
          contractor promptly after receipt of Federal sums due under
          this grant and to retain only such amounts as may be justified
          by specific circumstances and provisions of this grant or the
          construction contract.

          "Retained amounts shall be limited, except where greater
          retention is necessary under specific circumstances specifically
          provided for in the construction contract, to the following
          schedule:

             (a)  retention of up to 10% of payments claimed until
                  construction is 50% complete;

             (b)  after construction is 50% complete, reduction of the
                  total retainage to 5% of payments claimed, provided
                  that the contractor is making satisfactory progress
                  and there is no specific cause for greater withholding;

             (c)  when the project is substantially complete (operational
                  or beneficial occupancy), the retained amount shall be
                  further reduced below 5% to only that amount necessary
                  to assure completion of the contract work.

             (d)  a cash bond or irrevocable letter of credit may be
                  accepted in lieu of all or part of the cash retainage
                  under (b) or (c), above.

          "The grantee agrees to report to the Project Officer and promptly
          credit to the Federal share due under this- grant the full amount
          of any interest earned, or, if no such interest is earned, an
          imputed amount of interest at the prevailing rate, upon Federal
          sums paid to the grantee, if payment to the contractor is unjusti-
          fiably delayed by the grantee, its employees or representatives.

          "The grantee agrees to include appropriate provision in each
          Step 3 construction contract to implement this prompt payment
          requirement."
-------
     (8)  In implementation of this policy affected grantees must include
in each Step 3 construction contract, or must amend each such affected
construction contract to include, Article 19 entitled "Payments to Contractor"
at pages 16 and 17 of the model contract documents sent to you with PG-17,
dated May 17, 1973, or a substantially equivalent provision.

     (9)  In implementation of this policy, EPA personnel  must make
every effort to insure that grantees' payment requests are paid as
promptly as possible, generally well before the 20-day deadline established
in 40 CFR §35.945(b).  The Project Officer should receive  and review each
request for payment, but approval of the requested payment should be rou-
tinely approved without detailed review of the payment request unless the
Project Officer has specific cause to delay or limit payment.  Payment will
not be delayed beyond the 20th day after receipt of the request for payment,
unless substantial error or fraud is detected.  Any retention of amounts
requested shall be in conformence with the policy and procedures set forth
in applicable regulations, the grant agreement, or this memorandum.  The
Project Officer is responsible, however, for periodically  reviewing in
detail prior requests for payment and making appropriate adjustments on
the next payment request, pursuant to 40 CFR §35.945(c), but this review
should not be made in conjunction with a particular request for payment if
the effect of such review at that time will be to delay the payment.

     (10)  Grantees should be encouraged to make payment requests on a
monthly, rather than quarterly, basis, to the maximum practical  extent.

     Please advise this office of any suggestions for improvement or
difficulties encountered in the implementation of this memorandum.   The
key aspects of this memorandum will be incorporated in the construction
grant regulations at a later date.
-------
                                            PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-23
                                            Program Guidance Memorandum
                                            PG-44
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT:   Escalation Clauses in Construction Grant Projects     DATE:   Dec. 9, 1974

            algaeu
FROM:     John  T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-446)

TO-.       Regional Administrators


               On several occasions, the Agency has received requests to
          authorize so-called escalation clauses in construction contracts
          for wastewater treatment facilities to be awarded by grantees
          under the provisions of PL 92-500.

               Because of the open-ended funding situation created, the
          probability of the creation of additionally inflated prices,
          the added real costs of administering the indexing provisions
          that  would be required, and the absence of any real proof of total
          program cost savings, Federal Agencies have resisted the inclusion
          of escalation clauses in construction contracts.

               Accordingly, grantees will continue to be advised that the
          Environmental Protection Agency will not provide grant assistance to
          construction projects for which the grantee proposes to utilize
          escalation clauses.
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
I53SJ    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 ^tMfi*                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460               ....   1  ;, ?'

                                             PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-24
                                             PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
                                             PG NO. 46


  SUBJECT:   Large City  Problem in State Priority Lists

  FROM:      Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
            Municipal Construction Division

  TO:       Regional Administrators
            Attn:  Water Division Directors
       Forwarded for  information is the General  Counsel  legal opinion, dated
  December 13, 1974,  which discusses the relationships between population and
  other factors in the composition of a priority 11st, especially in regard
  to large metropolitan areas.
  Enclosure
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE,

                         WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                              DEC 1 3 1974
                                                   ENFORCEMEI
MEMORANDUM

Subject:   Large City Problem 1n State Priority Lists

From:     Alan G. Kirk II
          Assistant Administrator for
            Enforcement and General  Counsel  (EG-329)
To:
James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
  Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
     A question has been raised as to what control  EPA has  to prevent
large cities, such as Omaha or Honolulu, from using all or  almost all
available construction grant funds allocable to a State.

     Section 204(a) of the FWPCA requires that the Administrator
determine, before awarding any grant for any project, that  the project
has been "certified by the appropriate State water pollution control
agency as entitled to priority over such other works in the State 1n
accordance with any applicable State plan under section 303(e) of this
Act."  (Section 303(e) relates to a State's obligation with regard to
continuing planning).

     EPA has promulgated regulations concerning criteria for the
preparation by States of its priority lists.  These criteria are found
at 40 C.F.R. §35.915.  Subparagraph (c)(l) of that section  states that
the State "shall consider the severity of pollution problems, the popula-
tion affected, the need for preservation of high quality waters, and
national priorities..."  It is our view that the Administrator may not
approve a priority list which does not consider and weigh properly the
above criteria so as to produce a priority 11st which reasonably reflects
the needs of the State.  Further, the criteria should preclude population
alone from controlling a priority 11st.

     Where construction needs of a large metropolitan area  impinge unduly
upon available funds, consideration should be given to funding only those
"segments" of construction which are necessary to insure that construction
may proceed in accordance with appropriate priorities.
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                      PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO.  75-25
                                      Program Guidance Memorandum PG-49
SUHJF.CT:    Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for Land
           Treatment Processes

FROM:      John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
           for Water Program Operations (WH-446)

TO:        Regional Administrators
           ATTN:  Water Program Division Directors
                This memorandum provides guidance on the interpretation of
           Section 35.940.3 of the construction grant regulations (40 CFR Part 35)
           relative to the eligibility of the cost of land that will be an integral
           part of the treatment process.  A later Program Guidance Memorandum
           will provide guidance on the eligibility of the cost of land for the
           ultimate disposal of residues.

                The cost of land which is an integral part of the treatment
           process in a system for land treatment of liquid effluents is eligible
           for Federal grant assistance.  Land treatment includes the use of over-
           land flow, rapid infiltration/percolation, or crop irrigation processes.
           The effluent can be applied to the land by spray irrigation, flood
           irrigation or ridge and furrow irrigation.  The land treatment system
           shall not have a commonly used outlet or discharge point prior to land
           treatment.

                The cost of land for irregularities in spray patterns, reasonable
           buffering, berms, dikes, and for similar uses is eligible.  While not
           exclusive, the cost of land for the following uses is not eligible:

                1.  Sites for placement of buildings, equipment, components,
                facilities, interceptors or sewage collection systems.

                2.  Evaporation ponds, waste stabilization lagoons, equalization
                ponds and ponds for the temporary storage of effluents, treatment
                by-products, or residues and sludge drying beds.

                The facility plan for the land treatment system must include a
           cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative land treatment sites, as
           well as alternative technologies.

                Grant award or written EPA approval shall be obtained prior to
           any acquisition of such land in order that such costs will be allowable.
           The procedures for the independent appraisal and acquisition of land
           contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
           Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (P.L. 91-646) 42 USC Section 4651
           et seq. shall be followed.  The EPA Regulation implementing this
           statutory requirement is contained in Subpart F of Part 4 of
           Title 40 of the CFR, 40 CFR Section 4.6000 et seq.
EPA Form 1320.6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
     The grantee shall certify to the Regional Administrator that it
will comply with 40 CFR Section 30.810 and specifically Section 30.810-4
and Section 30.810-5.  The certification will be reflected as an encum-
brance in the title to the land.  The grantee shall obtain fee simple
title to all land acquired with grant assistance, with no encumbrances
other than the one protecting the Federal interest.

     The above criteria relate solely to the issue of eligibility of
land acquisition costs for EPA grant assistance,but are not determinative
of actual funding decisions on individual land acquisitions, since the
application of statutorily required criteria regarding environmental
impact, cost-effectiveness, alternative technologies, available funding,
relocation assistance, and other factors may result in a denial of EPA
grant assistance for land acquisitions which would otherwise be eligible
under the above.
-------
Interim 208 Outputs

     Headquarters Is Issuing a separate policy statement to
require Interim outputs during the 208 planning process.  These interim
208 outputs would include definition of planning and service areas and
treatment levels to guide facilities planning.

     After'interim outputs are developed and approved by the state and
EPA for a 208 planning area, the relationship between 201 and 208 planning
in that area will be the same as that described under the section on
"coordination and funding" above except that:

     1.  New facilities planning will be consistent with the approved
     interim outputs of the 208 plan.

     2.  The scope and funding of new 201 planning should not extend to
     developing a justification for the interim outputs.  This justifi-
     cation already will be available from the 208 planning process.

Approved 208 Plan

     The following will be the policy after the areawide plan has been
completed and approved, and the agency or agencies identified to construct,
operate and maintain the municipal wastewater treatment facilities required
by the plan:

     1.  All facilities plans underway at the time of approval will be
     completed by the agency which received the Step 1 grant.  The planning
     effort will continue as before approval unless the analysis in the
     approved 208 plan clearly justifies a change in required treatment
     levels or alternative approach on the basis of lower costs or major
     changes in environmental impacts.

     2.  The scope and funding of new facilities planning starts will be
     sufficient to supplement the data and analysis in the 208 plan to the
     extent necessary to provide a complete facilities plan as required by
     Section 35.917 of the Title II regulations.

     3.  New grants for 201 plans will be made to the management agencies
     designated in the approved 208 plan.  New facilities planning will be
     consistent with the approved 208 plan.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460   PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-26
                                         Program Guidance Memorandum
                                         PG-50
                                JUN   C 1975
                                                                  OFFICE OF THE
                                                                  ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT:  Consideration of Secondary Environmental  Effects  in
          the Constructionj&raTTE^ Process

   FROM:  Russell  E. Tra
          Administrator (A-l

     TO:  Regional Administrate
          Regions I - X

Purpose

     This policy statement provides guidance on consideration  of secondary
environmental effects during review of plans to construct publicly-owned
treatment works with Federal  grants under Title II of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended.

Background

     Municipalities are required when planning for construction of
publicly-owned treatment works to evaluate the environmental impacts of
the construction and subsequent operation of the treatment works and
prepare an environmental assessment.  The Agency reviews the environmental
assessment along with the rest of the facility plan and ultimately either
issues a negative declaration or, if the project is anticipated to have
significant adverse primary or secondary environmental effects or to be
highly controversial, prepares an environmental impact statement.

     Primary effects are those directly related to construction and
operation of the project.  Secondary effects of a project are (1)
indirect or  induced changes in population and economic growth.and
land use, and (2) other environmental effects resulting from these
changes in land use, population, and economic growth.  Secondary effects
can be of great importance to the environment but normally are much more
difficult to predict in advance than primary effects.

     This guidance  is aimed at assuring that secondary effects of a
project are  analyzed and taken into account during the grants
process in comparable manner throughout the ten regions.

Evaluation of Secondary Effects

     The policy of  the Agency  is that environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements shall analyze secondary as well as pri-
mary environmental  effects, and shall indicate whether such effects may
-------
contravene Federal, State and local  environmental  laws  and  regulations,
and plans and stancoHs required by environmental  laws  or regulations.
Where such contravention is possible,  the best available data  and  analytical
techniques should be applied to analyzing the likelihood and  extent of
such violations.

     Projects which have passed through the initial  planning  stage but
have not yet received a grant for construction should also  be  assessed
in accordance with this policy.  Particular attention should  be given
to large projects to be phased over several years  so that the  funding of
the current project does not commit EPA to future  actions which will
result in significant adverse effects  on the environment.

Actions to be Taken Before Grant is Awarded

     Where careful analysis leads to the conclusion  that the  secondary
effects of a project can reasonably be anticipated to contravene an
environmental law or regulation, or a  plan or standard  required by an envi-
ronmental law or regulation, the Regional Administrator shall  withhold
approval of a Step 2 or Step 3 construction grant  until the applicant
revises the plan, initiates steps to mitigate the  adverse  effects, or agrees
to conditions in the grant document requiring actions to minimize the
effects.

     Secondary effects may be mitigated by a large variety  of actions,
including, but not limited to:

     —phasing and orderly extension of sewer service
     —project changes
     — improved land-use planning
     —better coordination of planning among communities affected by
        the project
     --sewer use restrictions
     —modification or adoption of environmental programs  or  plans
        such as Air Quality Maintenance Plans
     —improved land management controls to protect water quality, such
        as sedimentation and erosion control and flood  plain  management.

     Care must be exercised if a condition is to be imposed in the grant
document to assure that the requirements are reasonable and that the
applicant possesses the authority to fulfill the conditions.

     The applicant should be required to demonstrate "good  faith" and be
clearly moving toward proper mitigative action before the grant is awarded.

Actions to be Taken After Grant is Awarded

     The regions  should follow-up after a  grant is made to ensure that
the applicant continues to make progress on mitigative actions and to
-------
meet any special conditions imposed by the grant document.   Among the
actions which the Regional  Administrator may take if the applicant fails
to abide by the grant agreement are:

     --withhold payments
     --refuse to process subsequent grant applications from the
        municipality
     --refuse to approve grants for future phases of the projects
     --enter an injunction against the grant recipient
     --suspend project work
     —terminate the grant and recover unexpended EPA funds

Such action should be continued until satisfactory progress has been made.

Special Attention Required

     Special attention is required for construction grants projects with
secondary environmental effects which may reasonably be expected to require
action under this policy.  The process of considering and acting on adverse
secondary environmental effects in these cases will be time-consuming
and must be conducted with care.  Projects with secondary impacts which
may be subject  to such action should be  identified early and receive
attention from  the time they appear on the project priority list so that
suitable agreements can be reached without delaying the project.  Regions
should work closely with States and local communities to ensure that
evaluation of environmental impacts  is fully integrated into the planning
process.                                     '
-------
                                         PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-27
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                     Program Guidance Memo # 52
                                                    (INTERIM POLICY)
SUBJECT:  Field Surveys to Identify Cultural  Resources           DATE: JUL  2
         Affected by EPA Construction Grants Projects
f
FROM:    John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
         for Water Program Operations (WH-446)

         Sheldon Meyers, Director
         Office of Federal Activities  (A-104)

  TO:    Regional Administrators
         Regions I - X

         PURPOSE

              This memorandum sets forth Agency policy to guide decisions in the
         EPA Title II construction grants program on field surveys for the purpose
         of identifying historical, architectural, archaeological  and cultural
         resources (hereafter referred to as "cultural resources") in accordance
         with the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Proper-
         ties"  (36 C.F.R. Part 800. 4(a)) issued by the Advisory Council on
         Historic Preservation.

         BACKGROUND

              Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
         Executive Order 11593 impose responsibilities on Federal  agencies to
         consider the effects of Federal, Federally assisted, and Federally
         licensed undertakings on properties included or eligible for inclusion
         in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory
         Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on such
         undertakings.  The Advisory Council has issued "Procedures for the
         Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800) to
         guide  agencies in meeting their responsibilities under the Act and the
         Executive Order.

              Several Regions have raised questions about EPA's specific responsi-
         bilities for historic preservation within the Grants program.  The cen-
         tral issue is as follows:  What are EPA's responsibilities for conducting
         field  surveys to identify cultural resources under the procedures of the
         Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (30 C.F.R. Part 800. 4(a))?

         POLICY

         Responsibility to Conduct Field Surveys in Areas of Primary Effects Only

              EPA has the responsibility to conduct field surveys to identify cul-
         tural  resources  that may  be affected by wastewater treatment grant projects
         only in  the  primary  impact areas of the grant projects.  Primary impact areas
         are those where  ground will be  disturbed for the project, such as the plant
         site,  pumping  station sites, access roads, and rights of way for interceptors,
 EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
Areas in which the wastewater treatment facilities will  have direct visual,
odor, or aerosol effects may also be primary impact areas if they are likely
to contain cultural properties of a type which are susceptible to such im-
pacts and if the proposed project has been designed so as to be exposed to
view or will  emit odors or aerosols.

Use Standard of Probability

     In areas where there are likely to be primary effects on cultural
resources, EPA must identify all properties listed in the National
Register of Historic Places by consulting the latest issue of the
National Register, including monthly supplements.  The current compi-
lation is found in the Federal Register of February 4, 1975 (Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 24, pp. 5248 - 5345); supplements are pub-
lished in the Federal Register, usually on the first Tuesday of each
month.

     EPA must also identify all properties eligible for listing in the
National Register within the primary impact area.  To do this, EPA
shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to
determine the extent and adequacy of existing information.

     If existing information is insufficient to  identify affected
properties that may be eligible for the National Register, EPA shall
conduct or fund cultural resources surveys at a  level adequate to do
so.  EPA's responsibility to conduct or fund such surveys on primary
impact areas shall be limited by the following standard:  The extent
of survey activities should be based on the degree of probability with
which cultural  resources can be expected to be found.

     Intensive  surveys should be conducted only  when a sufficient amount
of information  exists to indicate that there is  a reasonably high prob-
  ability of discovering  important cultural resources.  In areas where
such information does not exist, some or all of  the following usually will
suffice to determine whether an intensive  survey is justified:  a
documentary search of reference materials  on the cultural resources of
the  area, a walk-over reconnaissance survey for  archaeological properties,
and  a  "windshield" or photographic  survey  of historic and architectural
properties.

     When necessary,  intensive  surveys may include ground testing  for
archaeological  resources, or  the preparation of  a comprehensive map
locating  historical  and  architectural resources.  The information obtained
from any  identification  activities  conducted shall provide  the basis  for
determinations  of  eligibility  for  listing  in the National Register  in
accordance  with Part  800.4(a)  of the Advisory Council procedures.
-------
Determine Eligibility of Survey Costs Case-by-Case

     The decisions as to what are reasonable survey activities and costs
should be made on a case-by-case basis applying the standard of
probability described above.   Reasonable costs for surveys  and other
identification activities are to be considered grant eligible.  Early
assessment of survey needs should be undertaken to avoid project delays.
Many survey decisions will require some degree of historical or archaeo-
logical expertise in order to weigh the probabilities of discovering
particular properties.  Regional personnel  may find it advantageous to
retain the services of a historian or an archaeologist if they anticipate
numerous problems in this area.
-------
TO:
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


          Flood Insurance Requirements Effective

           U y  '                           PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMOR
          Alvin L. Aim                      Program Guidance Memorandum PA-
KROM-     ni » in u. nun                         -                        /• \
   ™"     Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management (PM-208)pi

          Regional Administrators                                        JUL 0  1975
                Enclosed you will find an advance copy of a revised Information
           sheet relating to flood insurance purchase requirements for our graiK
           programs.  The legal  requirements are also found in the final general
           grant regulations published on May 8 (40 CFR 30.405-10).

                Effective July  1, 1975 (or one year after a community's notifi-
           cation of  identification as a'flood-prone community, whichever is
           later),  EPA  1s prohibited  by law from making any grant for acquisition
           or construction  purposes in a flood hazard area unless the community
           in which the project is located is participating in the flood
           insurance  program and flood insurance 1s purchased by the grantee.

                The list of communities to which this prohibition applies on
           July 1,  1975, has1 just been published by HUD in the Federal Register
           (40 FR 26740-26756).  I am enclosing a copy of this list for your
           information  and  use.  The  list will be regularly updated by notice  in
           the Federal  Register as other communities pass the one year mark.

                EPA Regional Offices-have been receiving copies of HDD's monthly
           listings of  areas eligible for the purchase of flood insurance and
           areas which  have had special flood hazard areas identified but which
           are not participating in the program.  Regional offices have also
           been receiving copies of the maps issued by HUD delineating the flood
           hazard areas.  Procedures  should be immediately instituted to ensure
           that no grants are  made  in violation of  the statutory requirement.

                If not  already done,  an individual  should be designated in your
           office to  be familiar with the flood insurance requirements and to
           "handle questions which may arise from  time to time from your own
           staff, as  well as  from  grant applicants  and grantees.  Questions
           which you  may wish  to direct to headquarters on this subject should
           be addressed to  the Director, Grants Administration Division (PM-216),
           2Q2-755-0860.
           Enclosures
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
                                                                  DRAFT
     The final  EPA  general grant regulations published on the          *•••  •
Federal Register  on May  8, 1974, include the requirements for the
purchase of  flood insurance as a condition of EPA assistance (40 CFR
 0.405-10.)

EPA Grantee  Requirements

     1. Wastewater  treatment  construction grants.

     The grantee  or the  construction  contractor, as appropriate, must
acquire flood insurance  made  available  to it under the National Flood
Insurance Act of  1968, as  amended, beginning with the period of construction
and maintain such insurance  for  the entire useful life of the project if
the total value of  insurable  improvements is $10,000 or more.  The
amount of insurance required  is  the total project cost, excluding
facilities which are uninsurable under  the National Flood Insurance
Program and excluding the  cost  of  the land, or  the maximum limit
of coverage made available to the  grantee under the National Flood
Insurance Act, whichever is  less.  The  required insurance premium
for the period of construction is  an  allowable  project cost.

     2. Other grant programs.

     The grantee must acquire and  maintain any  flood insurance made
available to it under the National Flood Insurance Act of 19"68, as
amended, if the approved project includes  (a) any incidental construction-type
activity, or (b) any acquisition of real or nonexpendable personal property,
ind  the  total cost of such activities and acquisitions is $10,000 or more.
  he amount of insurance required, is  the total cost of any insurable,
nonexpendable personal or real property acquired, improved, or
constructed, excluding the cost of land, as a direct cost under  the grant,
or  the maximum limit of coverage made available to the grantee under
the National Flood Insurance Act,  as  amended, whichever  is  less, for
the entire useful  life of the property.  The required insurance  premium
for  the  period of  project support is  an allowable project cost.

     If  EPA provides financial assistance for nonexpendable personal property
to  a grantee that  the Agency has previously assisted with respect  to real
estate  at the  same facility  in the same location, EPA must  require  flood
insurance on the previously-assisted  building as well as on  the  personal
property.  The amount of flood insurance required on  the building  should
be  based upon  its  current value, however,  and not on  the amount  of assistance
previously provided.

Sources  of  insurance policies, maps,  and program information

      1.   Insurance policies  under the National  Flood  Insurance Program
can bo. obtained  from any licensed property insurance  agent  or broker
serving tin- eligible community, or from the  National  Flood  Insurers
Association  (NFIA) servicing company for the  State.   A current  listing
 of  servicing companies  is enclosed.
-------
     2.   Flood Hazard Boundary Maps are the first maps  prepared in  the
identification process.  These indicate the locations of  identified
special  flood hazard areas and are always maintained on file within each
eligible (participating) community in a repository designated by  the mayor
or chief executive  officer, usually the building inspector's office or
the city clerk's  office.  The address of such repository  is published
at Ik CFR 1914 and  is amended regularly in the Federal  Register.
The Flood Insurance Rate Maps are issued later following  a detailed study
of the flood hazard area.  These maps delineate degrees of flood  hazard
and include more  precise area identification.

     3.   Maps,  literature, and policy application forms and manuals
are available  for distribution from any NFIA servicing  company.   The  servicing
companies are  also  equipped to answer, .questions on eligibility  of communities,
scope of coverage,  and  maximum amounts of insurance available with respect
to particular  types of  buildings.

     4.   Questions  that cannot be answered by individual  agents or brokers
or by the appropriate  servicing  company may be referred to the  National
Flood Insurers Association, 1755 Jefferson Davis Highway, Alexandria,  Va. ,
22202, telephone  703-920-2070; to the flood insurance representative  at  the
nearest MUU regional  office  (list enclosed); or to the Federal  Insurance
Administration,  HUD,  Washington, D.C.  20A10, 202-755-5581,  or  toll free
800-424-8872 (8873).

     5.  Communities  may obtain  assistance from the appropriate State
Coordinating Agency in adopting  the required flood plain management
regulations and qualifying for  the program.  A list of the State'Coordinating
Agencies is also attached.

     6.  Copies of  statutes,  program  regulations, and  community eligibility
application forms may be obtained  from HUD regional offices or directly
from the Federal Insurance Administration  in Washington, p. C.
                                                           DRAFT
                                      July 1,  1975
                                      (supersedes  information sheet dated
                                       August 8,  1974)

      Additional copies of this information sheet may be obtained from the
 Grants  Information Branch.
-------
                Department of Housing And Urban Development
                   REGIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE SPECIALISTS
REGION I
John K. Kennedy Federal Building
Room U05A
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Telephone:  (6l?) 223-2616 or 2709
(For Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)

REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 1000?
Telephone:  (212) 26U-U756 or 8021
(For New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico)

REGION III
Curtis Building
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Telephone:  (21$) 597-9581
(For Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania} Virginia,
West Virginia)

REGION IV
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone:  (UoU) 526-2391
(For Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)

REGION V
300 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone:  (312) 353-0757
(For Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)

REGION VI
New Federal Building
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone:  (2lU) 7U9-7U12
(For Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
REGION VII
Federal Office Building
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Missouri 6U106
Telephone:  (8l6) 37U-2161
(For Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska)

REGION VIII
Federal Building
1961 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone:  (303) 837-23V7
(For Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming)

REGION IX
U50 Golden-Gate Avenue
P. 0. Box 36003
San Francisco, California 9U102
Telephone:  pending
(For Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada)

REGION X
Room 3068 Arcade Plaza Building
1321 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone:  (206) 14;2-1026
(For Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington)
-------
ALABAMA.
Alabama Development Office
 ffice"bf State Planning
  ate Office Building
  1 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 3^10U

ALASKA
Department of Community and
 Regional Affairs
Division of Community Planning
Pouch B
Juneau, Alaska 99811

ARIZONA
Arizona State Land Department
162U W. Adams, Room 1*00
Phoenix, Arizona 8^007

ARKANSAS
Division of Soil and Water
 Resources
State Department of Commerce
1920 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

CALIFORNIA
"Department of Water Resources
  st Office Box 388
 jcramento, California 95802

COLORADO
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Room 102
l8U$ Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203

CONNECTICUT
Department of Environmental
 Protection
Division of Water  and Related
 Resources
Room 207, State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut
 DELAWARE
 Division  of Soil  and Water
  Conservation
 Department  of Natural  Resources
  and Environmental  Control
 Tatnall Building, Capitol
 Dover,  Delaware 19901
FLORIDA
Department of Community Affairs
2571 Executive Center Circle Eaat
Howard Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

GEORGIA
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Planning and Research
270 Washington Street, S. W. Rm. 707
Atlanta, Georgia 3033^

HAWAII
Division of Water and Land
 Development
Department of Land and Natural
 Resources
P. 0. Box 373
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809

IDAHO
Department of Water Administration
State House - Annex 2
Boise, Idaho 83707

ILLINOIS
Governor's Task Force on Flood
 Control
300 North State St.
P. 0. Box U75, Rm. 1010
Chicago, Illinois 60610

INDIANA
Division of Water
Department of Natural Resources
608 State Office Building
Indianapolis, Indiana
 IOWA
 Iowa Natural  Resources  Council
 James W.  Grimes Building
 Des Moines,  Iowa  £0319

 KANSAS
 Division  of Water Resources
 State Department  of Agriculture
 State Office  Building
 Topeka, Kansas 66612

 KENTUCKY
 Division  of Water
 Kentucky  Department of  Natural
  Resources
 Capitol Plaza Office Tower
 Frankfort, Kentucky U0601
-------
                                   - 2 -
LOO 131A VA
Sta*ce IVjpartmont of Public Works
   0. Box U0.55
 apitol f>t at ion
Baton Bouge, Louisiana 7080U

MAINE
Office of Civil Emergency
 Preparedness
State House
Augusta, Maine 01*330

MARYLAND
Department of Natural Resources
Water Resources Division
State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 211*01

MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Water Resources
Water Resources Commission
State Office Building
100  Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202

MICHIGAN
water Resources Commission
   reau  of Water Management
  cevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan 1*8926

MINNESOTA
Division of Waters, Soils and
  Minerals
Department  of Natural Resources
Centennial  Office Building
St.  Paul, Minnesota 55101

MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi Research  and Develop-
  ment Center
 P. 0.  Drawer  21*70
 Jackson,  Mississippi  39205

 MISSOURI
 Department  of Natural Resources
 Division of Program and Policy
  Development
 State of Missouri
 308 East High Street
 Jefferson,  Missouri 65101
MONTANA
Montana Dept. of Natural Resources
 and Conservation
Water Resources Division
32 South Eving Street
Helena, Montana 59601

NEBRASKA
Nebraska Natural Resources
 Commission
Terminal Building, 7th Floor
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

NEVADA
Division of Water Resources
Department of Conservation
 and Natural Resources
Nye Building
Carson City, Nevada 89701

NEW HAMPSBZEE
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Division of Community Planning
State House Annex
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

NEW JERSEY
Bureau of Water Control
Department of Environmental
 Protection
P. 0. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

NEW MEXICO
State Engineer's Office
Bataan Memorial Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

NEW YORK
New York State Department  of
 Environmental Conservation
Division of Resources Management
 Services
Bureau of Water Management
Albany, New York 12201

NORTH CAROLINA
Division of Community Assistance
Department of Natural &
 Economic Resources
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
-------
                                    - 3 -
NORTH DAKOTA
State Water Commission
"State Office Building
 '00 E. Boulevard
Bismarck, North Dakota $8501

OHIO
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Flood Insurance Coor. Building
Fountain Square
Columbus, Ohio U322U

OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
22U1 Northweat Fortieth Street
Oklahoma City., Oklahoma 73112

OREGON
Executive- Department
State of Oregon
Salem, Oregon 97310

PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Community Affairs
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

 TJERTO RICO
 uerto Rico Planning Board
 1^70  Ponce de Leon Avenue
 Stop  22
 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908

 RHODE ISLAND
 R.  I. Statewide Planning Program
 265 Melroec Street
 Providence, Rhode Island 02907

 SOUTH CAROLINA
 South Carolina Water Resources
 Commission
 P.  0. Box kSlS
 Columbia, South Carolina 2921*0

 SOUTH DAKOTA
 State Planning Bureau
 Office  of Executive  Management
 State Capitol
 Pierre,  South Dakota 57501
TENNESSEE
Tennessee State Planning Office
660 Capitol Hill Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

TEXAS
Texas Water Development Board
P. 0. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

UTAH
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
State Capibol Building, Rm. 1*35
Salt Lake City, Utah 81*111*

VERMONT
Management & Engineering Division
Water Resources Department
State Office Building
Montpellier, Vermont 05602

VIRGINIA
Bureau of Water Control
 Management
State Water Control Board
Post Office Box 1111*3
Richmond, Virginia 23230

WASHINGTON
Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington 98501

WEST VIRGINIA
Office of Federal-State Relations
Division of Planning 
-------
                    National Flood Insurance Program
                    List of Servicing Company Offices
                              March 1, 1975
ALABAMA                                       DELAWARE
The Hartford Insurance Group                  General Accident P & L Assurance
Hartford Building                              Corp. Ltd.
100 Edgewood Avenue                           l^ll* Valnut Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30301                        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone:  (UoU) 521-2059                        Phone;  (215) 238-5000
ALASKA
Industrial Indemnity Co. of Alaska
P. 0. Box 307
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone:  (907) 279-9*M

ARIZONA
Aetna Technical Services Inc.
Suite 9Q1
3003 North Central Avenue
P.hoenix, Arizona 85012
Phone: (602) 26U-2621

ARKANSAS
The Travelers Indemnity Company
700 South University
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
P. 0. Box 51
Phone: (501) 66U-5085

CALIFORNIA-NORTHERN
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
 Companies
P. 0. Box 3136
San Francisco, California 91*119
Phone:  (1*15) 1*21-1676

CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
 Companies
P. 0. Box 2323
Los Angeles, California 90051
Phone:  (213) 381-311*1

COLORADO
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln-Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 266-0561

CONNECTICUT
Aetna Insurance Company
P. 0. Box 1779
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Phone:  (203) 523-1*861
FLORIDA
The Travelers Indemnity Cqmpany
1516 East Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone: (305) 896-2001

GEORGIA
The Hartford Insurance Group
Hartford Building
100 Edgewood Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Phone: (l*0i*) 521-2059

HAWAII
First Insurance Co. of Hawaii, Ltd.
P. 0. Box 2866
Honolulu,' Hawaii 96803
Phone: (808) $1*8-511

IDAHO
Aid Insurance Company
Snake River Division
181*5 Federal Way
Boise, Idaho 83701
Phone:  (208) 3U3-U931

ILLINOIS
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Illinois Regional Office
2309 E. Oakland Avenue
Bloomington, Illinois 61701
Phone:  (309) 557-7211

INDIANA
United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance C
130 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 1*6201*
Phone:  (317) 26>7200

IOWA
Employers Mutual Casualty Company
P. 0. Box 881*
DesMoines, Iowa 50301*
Phone: (515) 280-2511
-------
                                    - 2 -
^KANSAS
 'oyal-Globe Insurance Companies
 j.125 Grand Avenue
 Kansas City, Missouri 6klkl
 Phone:   (8l6) 8l»2-6ll6

 KENTUCKY
 CNA Insurance
 580 Walnut Street
 Cincinnati, Ohio U5202
 Phone:   (513) 621-7107

 LOUISIANA
 Aetna  Technical Services,  Inc.
 P. 0.  Box 61003
 New Orleans, Louisiana  70160
 Phone:   ($OU) 821-1511

 MAINE
 Commercial Union Insurance Company
 c/o Campbell, Payson &  Noyes
 27 Pearl St., Box  $27 Pearl St.  Station
 Portland, Maine 014116
 Phone:   (207) 77U-1U31

 MARYLAND
   S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company
 f. 0.  Box 1138
 Baltimore, Maryland 21203
 Phone:   (301) 539-0380

 MASSACHUSETTS-EASTERN
 Commercial Union  Insurance Company
 1 Beacon Street
 Boston,  Massachusetts  02108
 Phone:  (617)  725-6128

 MASSACHUSETTS-WESTERN
 Aetna Insurance  Company
 P.O. Box 1779
 Hartford, Connecticut  06101

 MICHIGAN
 Insurance Company of North America
 Room 300-Buhl Building
 Griswold & Congress Streets
 Detroit, Michigan U8226
 Phone:   (313) 963-MU*
MINNESOTA-EASTERN
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
 Company
P. 0. Box 3U70
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
Phone:  (612) 222-7751

MINNESOTA-WESTERN
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
 Company
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55^31
Phone:  (612) 835-2600

MISSISSIPPI
The Travelers Indemnity Company
5360 Interstate 55 North
P.- 0. Box 2361
Jackson, Mississippi  39205
Phone:   (601) 956-5600

MISSOURI-EASTERN
MFA Insurance Companies
1817 West Broadway
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Phone:   (31!*) i^-WP-

MISSOURI-WESTERN
Royal-Globe  Insurance Companies
1125 Grand Avenue
Kansas  City, Missouri 6i^Lip.
Phone:   (8l6) 81+2-6116

MONTANA
The Home Insurance Company
8 Third Street N.-P.O. Box  1031
Great  Falls, Montana 59^01'
Phone:   (U06) 761-8110

NEBRASKA
Royal-Globe  Insurance Companies
1125 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri
Phone:  (8l6) 8U2-6116

NEVADA
The  Hartford Insurance Group
P. 0.  Box 500
Reno,  Nevada 8950U
Phone:  (702)  329-1061
-------
                                   - 3 -
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1 Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Phone:  (61?) 725-6128

NEW JERSEY
Great American Insurance Company
5 Dakota Drive
Lake Success, New York 110UO
Phone:  (201) 22^-1*200

NEW MEXICO
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln-St., Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone:  ('303) 266-0061

NEW YORK
Great American Insurance Company
5 Dakota Drive
Lake Success, New York 110i|0
Phone:  (5l6) 775-6900

NORTH CAROLINA
Kemper Insurance
 ?29 Greenwood Cliff
 narlotte, North Carolina 2820^
Phone:  (70U) 372-7150

NORTH DAKOTA
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
 Company
251; Hamm Building
1*08 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone:  (612) 227-9581

OHIO-NORTHERN
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1300 East 9th St.
Cleveland, Ohio l^lll;
Phone:  (216) 522-1060

OHIO-SOUTHERN
CNA Insurance
580 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio U5202
Phone:  (513) 621-7107
OKLAHOMA
Republic-Vanguard Insurance Group
P. 0. Box 3000
Dallas, Texas 75221
Phone:  (21U) 528-0301

OREGON
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
U600 25th Avenue, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97303
Phone:  (503) 393-0101

PENNSYLVANIA
General Accident F & L Assurance
 Corp., Ltd.
Uli; Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone;  (215) 238-5512

PUERTO RICO
I.S.O. of Puerto Rico
Penthouse 7th Ochoa Bldg.
7th floor, P.O. Box 1333
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00^02
Phone:  (809) 723-0000

RHODE ISLAND
American Universal Insurance Co.
114; Wayland Avenue
Providence, Rhode Island 02901;
Phone:  (l|0l) 351-U600

SOUTH CAROLINA
Maryland Casualty Company
P. 0. Box 11615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Phone:  (701;) 525-8330

SOUTH DAKOTA
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co,
25k Hamm Building
kOQ St. Peter Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone:  (612) 227-9581

TENNESSEE
CNA Insurance
110-21st Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Phone»  (615) 327-0061
-------
TEXAS
The Home Insurance Company
2100 Travis Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone:  (713) 225-0931

UTAH
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln St., Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone:  (303) 266-0561

VERMONT
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1 Beacon Street
Boston, -Massachusetts 02108
Phone:  (617) 725-6128

VIRGINIA
Insurance Company of North America
5225 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W:
Washington, D. C. 20015
Phone:  (202) 2l4j-2000
WASHINGTON
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
 Companies
1000 Plaza 600 Building
6th & Stewart
Seattle, Washington 98101
Phone i  (206) 587-3200
    *•

WEST VIRGINIA
TT. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company
3321* McCorkle Avenue, S.E.
Charleston, West Virginia 25301+
Phone:  (30U)
WISCONSIN
Aetna Insurance Company
5735 East River Road
Chicago, Illinois 6063!
Phone:   (312) 693-2500

WYOMING
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln- St., Suite  1800
Denver,  Colorado 80203
Phone:   (303) 266-0561
-------
                                                          (NOTICES
  DEPARTMENT OF  HOUSING AND
       URBAN  DEVELOPMENT

     Federal Insurance Administration
          [Docket No. N-73-375]
 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
 Fiood-Prone Areas of Communities Subject
   to July 1, 1975;  Prohibition of Federal
   and Federally Related Assistance
   The purpose of this notice is to provide
 a list of communities that contain areas
 of special flood  hazard potentially sub-
 ject to the  provisions of section 202 of
 ths  Flood  Disaster Protection Act  of
 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234) on July 1,1975, and
 to provide a convenient reference for in-
 terested persons,  communities, federal
 agencies   and   instrumentalities,  and
 otaers involved  in  assuring compliance
 trith that section.
   Section  202  provides  that  effective
 July 1, 1975, federal agencies and feder-
 ally supervised, approved, insured, or reg-
 ulated lending institutions are prohibited
 from providing  financial  assistance  or
 making loans for acquisition or construc-
 tion purposes  in areas which  (a) have
 been designated by the  Secretary  of
 Housing  and  Urban  Development  as
 Special Flood Hazard Areas for at least
 one  year;  and (b)   are in  communities
 •which are not participating in the Na-
 tional  Flood  Insurance  Program  (42
 U.S.C. 4001-4128).
   Each of the communities listed below
 received  notice  of  its  designation  as
 flood-prone  prior to July 1, 1974, and
 legal notice was furnished of such desig-
 nation by publication under Part 1915 of
 Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regula-
 tions in  the FEDERAL REGISTER.  These
 communities have failed to provide the
 Federal  Insurance  Administrator with
 sufficient technical  or scientific data to
 rebut their  designation as flood  prone.
 Thus, the sanctions of section '202 apply
 until the community participates in the
 program.
   In order to continue federal  or feder-
 ally  related  assistance or lending in  its
 Special Flood Hazard Area, a community
must apply for and be made eligible for
participation in the program in accord-
ance with 24 CFR Parts  1909  to 1920.
Communities may receive assistance  in
applying for participation by contacting
the  Federal Insurance Administration,
 451  Seventh St., SW., Washington,  D.C.
20410,  (202)  755-5581, or  its  toll-free
numbers 800-424-8872 or 800-424-8873.
   Communities on this list may be made
eligible to participate in  the  program
after the date of publication of this list.
 Such eligibility will  be published periodi-
cally in  the  FEDERAL REGISTER  under  24
CFR 1914.4 List of eligible communities.
At that  .joint  the  sanctions of section
202  will no  longer  apply to such  com-
 munities.
   The list is as follows:
                 STATES
                Alabama
                             Date of
                           Identification
 Altoor.a,  town  o* (Etowali
  Coua;y)	May 17, 1074
 A =*-*•.! a,  city  of  
-------
           California—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
  CoaoHeUa, city of (Riverside
    County)  -		  May 17, 1974
  Cupertino,   city of  (Santa
    Clara County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
  Dais' Cicr, city of (San Mateo
    County)  	  Feb. 22, 1974
  Delano,  city   of   (Kern
    County)  	,	  May 24, 1974
  Deserc Hot  Springs,  city of
    (Riverside County)	      Do.
  Dixon,   city   of   (Solano
    County)  		  Mar. 15, 1974
  El Centre, city of  (Imperial
    County)  		—  Feb. 1. 1974
  Emeryville,  city of  (Alameda
   County)  	  Apr. 12, 1974,
                               and Dec. 13,
                               1973
  Etna,  city  of   (Siskiyoo
   County)  	  Feb. 22, 1974
  Exeter,   city   of   (Tulare
   County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
  Gait, city  of  (Sacramento
   County)  	.	  May 17, 1974
  Gonzales, city of  (Monterey
   County) 	  May 24, 1974
 Grass Valley, city of (Nevada
   County)	  May 17, 1974
 Gridley,  city  of   (Butte
   County)		  May 24. 1974
 Guadalupe,   city of  (Santa
   Barbara County)	  May  17, 1974
 Half  Moon Bay, city of (San
   Mateo County)	  Mar. 1, 1974
 Holtvilie, city of  (Imperial
   County) 	  Apr. 5, 1974
 Hughson, city of (Stanislaus
   County) 	  May 24, 1974
 Huron,   city  of   (Fresno
   County) 	  May 17, 1974
 Indio,  city   of  (Riverside
   County) 	  May 31, 1974
 lone,   city   of   (Amador
   County) 	  May 24, 1974
 La Palma, city of  (Orange-
   County) 	  June 14, 1974
 Maricopa,  city  of  (Kern
   County) 	      Do.
 Mendota,  city  of   (Fresno
   County) 	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Monte Sereno. city of (Santa
  Clara County).		  May 24, 1974
 Morgan Hill, city of (Santa
  Clara County)	__.  May 31, 1974
 Napa,   city    of    (Napa
  County) 	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Oceanside, city of (San Diego
  County)  	  May 10, 1974
 Orange Cove, city of (Fresno
  County) 	  May  10, 1974
 Pinole, city of (Contra Costa
  County) 	  May  24, 1974
 Placerville, city of  (El Do-
  rado County)	  June 7, 1974
 Eancho Mirage, city of  (Riv-
  erside County)	  June 14, 1974
 Rio Dell, city of (Humboldt
  County) 	  May  24, 1974
 Rlverbank, city of  (Stanis-
  laus County)	   May  10, 1974
 Ean  Bruno,  city  of  (San
  Mateo  County)	   June 7, 1974
San Clemente, city of (Or-
  ange County)	   June 14, 1974
San Jacinto,  city of (River-
  side County)	   Sept. 28, 1973
San Joaquin, city of (Fresno
  County) 		   May  10, 1974
San Juan Bautista,  city of
  (San Benito County)	_.   Feb.  8,  1974
San Juan Capistraiio, city of
  (Orange County)	   May  10, 1974
Santa Cruz, city of (Santa
  Cruz County)	   March 3, 1974
Scor,:.-5 VV.ley, c'.ty of (3-tuta
  Uruz County)		   .May 31, 1974
                 NOTICES

            California—Continued.
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Selma,   city   of   (Fresno
   County)  	  May 24,  1974
 Sooora, city of (Tnolumne
   County)  	  May 31,  1974
 St.  Helena, city  of  (JTapa
   County)  	      Do.
 Susanville,  city of (Lassea
   County)  	  Feb. 1,  1974
 Vista,  city  of  (San  Diego
   County)  	  June 14,  1974
 Wasco, city of  (Kern Coun-
   ty)  	  May 17,  1974
 Westmorland, city of  (Im-
   perial County)	  May 24,  1974
 Willits,  city of (Mendocino
   County)		  Feb. 8,  1974
       Total 	  58
                 Colorado

 Breckenridge, town oi (Sum-
   mit County)		  May 24,  1974
 Buena Vista, town of (Chaf-
   fee  County)	-	  May 3,  1974
 Craig,   city    of   (Moffat
   County)  	      Do-
 Dove Creek, town of (Dolores
   County)  		  May  24,  1974
 Florence, city  of  (Fremont
   County)  	  May  17,  1974
 Grand   Junction,  city   of
   (Mesa County)	  Feb.  1,  1974
                             June 28,  1974
 Hugo,   town  of   (Lincoln
   County)  		  May  31,  1974
 La Fayette,  city of  (Boulder
   County)	-	  May  24, 1974
 La Jara, town  of  (Conejos
   County)  	  May  17, 1974
 Leadville,   city  of   (Lake
   County)  	     Do-
 Lovelaud, city  of  (Larimer
   County)  	  Mar.  1,  1974
 Mancos.   town  of  Monte-
  zuma County)	      Do.
 Manzauola,  town of  (Otero
  County)  			   May  17, 1974
 Milliken,  town  of  (Weld
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
 Nucla,  town  of (Montrose
  County) 		  May 17, 1974
 Otis,  town  of  (Washington
  County) 		  May 24, 1974
 Ouray,   city   of   (Ouray     Do.
  County)  	
 Rifle,   city   of  (Garfleld  June 15, 1973
  County)  	
 San Luis, town  of  (CostUla  May 24. 1974
  County) 	
 Sterling,  city   of   (Logan  Jan. 23, 1974
  County)  	
 Tampa,   city   of  (Croutt
  County) 	  May 24, 1974
      Total  	  21
               Connecticut

 Becou  Falls, town of  (New
  Haven County)	  May  3,  1974
 Bethel,  town of (Fairfield
  County)			  Apr.  6,  1974
 Bolton,  town of  (Tolland
  County) 	  June  7, 1974
 Colchester, city of (New Lon-
  don  County)	      Do.
 Eoxbury, town of (Litchneld
  County) 	      Do.
 Southington, town of (Hart-
  ford County)	  May 10, 1974
Sterling,  town of (Windham
  County) 	  May 31, 1974
Thomaston,  town of (Litch-
  field County)	      Do.
Thompson, town of (Wtad-
  ham County)	  May 17,1974
Voluntown,  town  of  (?T«w
  London County)	  May 31,  1974
          Connecticut—Continued
                                Date of
                             identification
 Washington Depot,  town of
   (Litchfield County )L	  March 3, 1974
 WUHaroac-tic, city of (Wind-
   ham County)	  May  10,  1974
 Wlndhaoi,  town of (WlEd-
   ham County)	  Apr.  12,  1074
 Winsted, city of  (Litchfield
   County)  	  May  17,  1974
 Wolcott. town of (New Haven
   County)		  May   3,  1974
       Total	  16

                 Delaware

 Dover,   city   of    (Kent
   County)  	,	  May  31,  1974
 Greenwood, town of (Sussex
   County)  	  May  24,  1974
       Total	. 2

                  Florida
 Bonifay,  city  of   (Holmes
   County)  	  Nov.  16,  1973
 Branford, town of (Suwan-
   nee County)	  Jan.9,1974
 Bnny Breezes, town of- (Psim
   Beach  County)	  Jan,  23,  1974
 Carabelle, city of  (Franklin.
   County)  	  Jaa.  23,  1974
 Fellsmere,  city of  (Indian
   River  County)		  Jan.  16,  1974
 Lakeland,  city   of   (Polk
   County)  	  Mar.  1,  1974
 Madison, city of  (Madron
   County)	.	  May  24,  1974
 Mangonia  Park,  town  of
   (Palm Beach County)	  Jan.  16,  1974
 Orchid,  town  of   (Indian
   River County)	  Jan.  23-.  1974
 Pembroke   Park,  town  of
   (Broward County)	  May  31,  1971
 Qumoy.  city of  (Gadsden
   County) 	  Mar,   1,  1974
 Sebastian, town of  (Indian
   River County)	  Feb. 8,1974
 Wauchula,  city  of  (Swrater
   County) 	  Nov.  23,  1973
 Webster,  town  of  (Sumter
   County) 	     Do.
 White  Springs,   town   of
   (Hamilton County)	  Jan. 16, 1974
 Wildwood, town of (Sumter
   County) 	  Jan.  23, 1974
 Yankeetown, town of  (Levy
   County) 	1	   Aug.  20, 1971
 Zephyrhllls,  city of (Pasco
   County) 	,.   Feb. 1,1974
 Zolfo Springs, town of (Har-
   dee County)	   Jan.  16,  1974
      Total	   19
                 Georgia
 Adatrsville, town of (Barto-w
  County)  	  June 14, 1974
 Brooilet,  town, of (Bullock
   County) 	   Apr.  5,  1974
 Clayton,   town  of  (Rabun
   County) 	   May 24,  1374
 Crawford,  city  of  (Ogle-
   thorpe County)	   June 7,  1974
 Gumming, city of (Forsyth
   County) 	   June 14, 1974
 Cu$£et3, city of (Chattahoo-
   chee County)	   Apr. 12,  1374
 Duluth,  city of (Gwtnnett
  County) 	   May 24,  1974
Franklin,  town  of  (Heard
  County) 	  May 10,  1974
Hawkinsville,  city of  (Pu-
  laski county)	   Mays, 1974
Homerville,  city of (Clinch
  County)	  June  7, 1974
Jackson,   city   of  (Butts
  County) 	  May 17,  1974
Jonssboro, c'ty of  (Clayton
  County) _	'...,	  May 24, 1974
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 40, NO. T23—WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 25,  7975
-------
 25742

            Georgia—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Kear.s-.=*iv,  to*'n of  (Cobb
   Co-xnty)  	  June 14, 1374
 Lv.cio-ic:,   city   of   (Long
   Cou—ty)	      Do.
 McCa.rsvLJe, city ol (Frannin
   County)  	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Hour.:;  Vernon,  city  of
   fMcntcomery County)	  May 31, 1374
 Mouncam  View,  city  of
   (Clayton County)	  May 10, 1974
 Paimev.o, city or (Pulton &
   COTre^a Counties)	  June 14, 1974
 Pembroke,  city  of  (Bryan
   Co'ar.ty)  	  May 10,  1974
 Porterdale,  town of (Newton
   County)  	  Apr. 12,  1974
 Poulan,  city  of   (Worth
   County)  	  May 17,  1974
 Blceboro,  city  of (Liberty
   County)  	  May 10,  1974
 Stone Mountain, city of (Da
  Kalb County	  May 12,  1974
 UnadlUa, town  of  (Dooly
   County)  	  June 14, 1974
 Vernonburg, town of  (Gnat-
   ham County)	  July 27,  1973
 Waverly Hall,  town of (Har-
  ris County)	  June 14,  1974
 Woodbine, city of  (Camden
  County)  	      Do.
 Young  Harris,   town   ot
   (To-ras County)	      Do.
      Total—	  23

                  Idaho

 American Falls, city of (Pow-
  er County) —.*.	  May  24,  1974
 Burley,  city   of    (Cassia
  County)  	      Do.
 Coeur D'Alene, city of (Koc-
  tenai  County)	,	  Mar. 29,  1974
 Council,  city of  (Adams
  County)  	  May 3,  1974
 Garden  City,  city of  (Ada
  County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
 Harrison, city of (Kootenal
  County)  	  Mar. 22,  1974
 Malad City, city of (Oneida
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
 Neaperce,  city  of   (Lewis
  County)  	  Nov.  23, 1973
 Parma,  city   of  (Canyon
  County)   		  May  17, 1974

      Total	  9
                  Illinois

 Abingdon,   city  of  (Knox
  County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Altamont, city of (Effingham
  County)  	 . Mar.  22, 1974
 Anna,    city   of   (Union
  County)  	  Mar.  29,-1974
Armlngton,  village of  (Taze-
  well County)		_-  Mar.  22, 1974
Arthur, Tillage of (Moultrie-
  County) 	  May  3, 1974
 Atwood,  village  of  (Platt
  County) 	  Nov. 23, 1973
Banner,  village of (Fulton
  County) 	  Dec. 28, 1973
Bath,  Tillage  of  (Mason
  County) 	   Dec. 17, 1973
Bement,  Tillage  of  (Platt
  County)'	   June 14, 1974
Bluffs,   Tillage   of   (Scott
  County)	..	   June 7, 1974
Bonnie, Tillage of (Jefferson
  County)  	-—_  Feb. 15, 1974
Bteese,   city  of   (Clinton
  County)		—  June 7, 1974
Eridgevtew,  Tillage of  (Cook
  County)	   Mar. 22, 1974
Ercokport,  city of (Masaac
  Couatv) 	   June 7, 197-i
                 NOTICES

             Illinois—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Brou^aton, village of (Ham-
   ilton County)		  Mar.  1,  1974
 Buihnell, city of  (McGon-
   ough  County)	  June  7,  1D74
 Bush, village of (Williamson
   County)  	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Byron,   city   of    (Ogle
   County)  	  May 10, 1974
 Calumet  Park,  village  of
   (Cook County)	~	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Camargo, village of (Douglas
   County)  	  April  5,  1974
 Carton   Hills,  village  of
   (Orundy County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
 Corhnville,  city   of   (Ma-
   couptn  County)	  June 14, 1974
 Carlyle,   city  of   (Clinton
   County)  	  Dec. 7,  1973
 Carrollton,  city of  (Greene
   County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Cartervule, city of (William-
   sou County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
 Cave-in-Rock,  village   of
   (Hardln  County)	  Jan. 23, 1974
 Central   City,   village  of
   (Marlon  County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
 Centralia, city of (Clinton
   and Marion Counties)	  May 3, 1974
 Chandlerville,   village-   of
   (Caas  County)	  Nov. 23, 1973
 Channohon, village of (Will
   County) 	.  Mar. 29, 1974
 Chatman, village of (Sanga-
   mon County)	  Nov. IS, 1973
 Clay City,  village  of  (Clay
   County) 	   Mar. 22, 1974
 Clinton,   city of  (De Witt
   County)	   May 24, 1974
 Columbia, city of  (Monroe
   County) 	   May 17, 1974
 Creve  Couer,  village   of
   (Tazewell County)	   Feb. 22, 1974
 Cullom,  villaga of (LiTir.g-
   ston County)	      Do.
 Dallas City, city of (Hancock
   County) 	,	   Mar. 22, 1974
 De Soto, village of  (Jacl^on
   County) 	   April 5, 1974
 Dij;moor, village  of (Cook
   County) 	      Do.
 Dongola,  village  of (Union
   County) 	—   Mar. 8,  1974
 Dxirand,  village of (Winne-
   bogo County)	   April 5, 1974
Edwardsville. city of (Madi-
   son County)	      Do.
 Efflngham, city of  (Efflng-
   ham County)	   Mar. 22, 1974
 Eileen,  village of  (Gruudy
   County) 	   Mar. 8,  1974
Eldorado,  city  of  (Saline
   County) 	-"  Feb. 22, 1974
Eldred, village  of  (Greene
   County) 	   Dec. 17, 1973
Ellzabethtown,  village   of
   (Hardin County)	   Jan. 16, 1974
Ellisvttle,  village of  (Fulton
  County) „		  Mar. 22, 1974
Equality, village of (Gallatin
  County) 	      Do.
Evansville, village of (Ran-
  dolph County)	  Mar. 1, 1974
Fayetteville, village  of  (St.
  Clair  County)	  Feb. 22, 1974
Florence,  village  of  (Pike
  County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
Foosland, village of (Cham-
  paign  County)	  Mar. 29,1974
Forreston,  village  of (Ogle
  County)  	  June 7,  1974
Forrest, village of  (Living-
  ston County)	  Mar. 1, 1974
Freeburer.  village   of   (St.
  CUlr "Co-untyj	  Mar. 22; 1974
            Illinois—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Fulton,  city  of (Whiteslde
   County)  	  May 31, 1974
 Fults,  village  of   (llonrod
   County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
 G?.latia,  village of  (Saline
   County)  	  Mar. 1, 1974
 Galva,    city   of    (Henry
   County)  	  June 14, 1974
 Genoa,   city  of  (De  Kalb
   County)  	.	  Mar. 1, 1974
 Georgetown, city of (Vermil-
   ion County)	^	  May 17, 1974
 Germantown,   village   of
   (Clinton  County)	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Gibson  City, city  of (Ford
   Coxinty)  	      Do.
 Gillespie, city of (Alacoupln
   County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Gilrnan,  city  of  (IrOquois
   County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Golconcla,  city  of   (Pope
   County)  	  Jan, 23, 1974
 Golden,  village  of (Adams
   County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Green   Rock,   village   of
   (Henry County)	  Jan. 16, 1974
 Greenfield,  city of  (Green
   County)  	  Feb. 22, 1974
 Greeuview,  village  of  (Me-
   nard County)	,  Nov. 23, 1973
 Greenville,  city of  (Bond
   County)  	  June 14, 1974,
 Hammond,  village  of (Piatt
   County)  	    DO.
 Hampshire, village  of (Kane
   County)  		_  May 3, 1974
 Hanover,  village  of   (Jo
   County)  	  April 5, 1974
 Havana,   city  of   (Mason
   County)  	  .  Do.
 Eeyworth,  village  of  (Mc-
   Lean   County)	  June 14, 1974
 HUisbcro,   city of (Mont-
   gomery County)	  May 17, 1374
 Hillside,   village of  (Cook
   County)  	  May  3, 1974
 Hinckley, village of (Dekalb
  "County)  			  Mar. 1, 1974
 Hopedale, village of  (Taze-
   we-11 County)	  Apr.  5, 1974
 Hurst, village  of  (William-
   son Coiurty)	,.	  Mar. 15, 1974
 Jerseyville,  city  of (Jersey
   County) 	  June 7, 1974
 Joppa,  village  of  (Massac
   County) 		  Nov.  23, 1973
 Kingston Mines, village  of
   (Peoria County)—	_  Dec. 23, 1973
 Kirkwood, village of (War-
   ren County)	  May 24, 1974
 Knoxvllle,  city  of  (Knox
   County) 	  Juno 7, 1974
 Lacon,  city  of  (Marshall
   County) 	  Nov. 30, 1973
 Lake Bluff,  village  of (Lake
   County) 	  Feb. 1,  1974
Lawrenceville, city  of (Law-
  rence  County)	  Mar.  3, 1974
 Leaf River,  village  of (Ogle
  County) 	  Nov. 23, 1973
 Lebanon,  city of (St. Clair
  County) 	  Nov. 16, 1973
Livingston, village of (Madi-
  son County)	_  Mar. 22, 1974
Loami, village of (Sangamon
  County) 	  Mar. 29, 1,974
Malta, village of  (Dekalb
  County)	  June 7, 1974
Manlius,  village of  (Bureau
  County)  	  Mar. 8,  1974
Marquette Heights, city  of
   (Tazewell  County)	   Do.
Martinsville, city of  (ClarK
  County)  	  Nov. 23. 1973
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 25, 1975
-------
             Illinois—Continued
                                 Date of
                              Identification
  Mv.tr.ie,  village  c-f  (Wclte
  "c-j.iuty)  	  Jan. 9, 1974
  Muyvood.  village of (Coolc
  "c-Ainty)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
  jj-Lejniboro, city of (Ham-
   ii;c:i  County)	  Mar. 22, 1974
  MKropolis, city of  (Massac
   Comity)  	-	  Mar. 8, 1974
  Monij-r.ce, City of (Kankakee
  "co-..:itv)  	  Jan.9,1974
  Mount Cnrmel,  city of  (Wa-
   bash  County)	  Mar.  15, 1974
  Mo'.vsaqua, village of Shelby
   County)  	  June 7, 1974
  Mudciy,  village  of  (Saline
   County)  	  Mar. 22, 1974
  Nashville, city of (Washing-
   ton County)	   May 17, 1974
 Nebo,   village    of   (Pike
   County)  	   Dec. 28,1973
 New Athens, village  of  (St.
   Clalr County)	   Mar. 22,1974
 New Biden, village of (Clin-  -
   ton County)	   May 24,1974
 New Haven, village of (Gal-,
   latin County)	   Jan. 16,1974
 Newton,  city  of   (Jasper
   County)  	   Dec. 17,1973
 Niantic,  village  of  (Macon
   County}  	   Mar. 1,1974
 Nokomis, city of (Montgom-
   ery County)	  Mar. 29,1974
 North  Pskin,   village   of
   (Tazeweil County)	  Mar. 8,1974
 Oakwood, village of (Vermil-
   lion County)	   Mar. 29,1974
 Oglesby,  city   of (LaSalle
   County)  	   May 24.1974
 Old  Shawneetown, village of
   (Gallatin County)	  Dec. 17,1973
 Olney,  city of  (Blchlaiid
   County)   	  Feb. 22, 1974
 Omaha, village of (Gallatiu
   County)   	  May 10,1974
 Oneida,   city   of   (Knox
   County)   			  Jun.e7,1974
 Palestine, town of (Crawford
   County)   	  Nov. 23,1973
 Paris,   city   of   (Edgar
   County)   	  Mays, 1974
 Park City,  village of (Lake
   County)   		  Mar. 1,1974
 Park Ridge, city of  (Cook
   County)   	  Feb. 22,1974
                               and
                             Nov. 22, 1973
 Paw  Paw,  village of  (Lee
   County)	„	  June 14,1974
 Pawnee,  village  of (Sanga-
  mon County)	  May 17, 1974
 Pearl City,  village of (Ste-
  phenson County)	  Mays, 1974
 Pearl,   village   of   (Pike
   County)  	  Dec. 28,1974
 Pecantomca, village of (Wln-
  nebago County)	  Apr. 5,1974
 Pekln,  city of   (Tazeweil
  County)  _	  Apr. 12,1974
 Petersburg,  city  of (Menard
  County)  	  Dec. 7,1973
 Phoenix,   village  of  (Coolc
  County)  	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Pinckneyville, city ol  (Perry
  County)  -		  Mar. 22,1974
 -PittsEeld,  city  of   (PU»
  County)  	  June 7,1974
 Pleasant Plains,  village of
  -(Saugamon County)	  Mar. 22,1974
 Po!o, city of  (Ogle County) —  May 17,1974
Por.t-ocsuc. village of  (Han-
  cock Ccunty)	  Jan. 16, 1974
Potomac, village of (Vermil-
  Uca County)	  Mar, 22,1974
Pvlns'.cl. vijiatja  of (Pu'iskl
  Cji.ir-V)		—  May 17, 137-1   .
fcankin, vl'.Iagw  of (Verrail-               [
  lion <£>'oaV)—	    Do-         I
                 NOTICES

             Illinois—Continued
                                 Date of
                              Identification
 Rautoul, village of  (Cham-
   paign County)	   Apr. 12, 1974
 Ridgway, village of (Galiatin
   County)  		   Feb. 22, 1974
 Eiaott, village of (Stephen-
   son County)	   Dec. 17, 1973
 Riverton, village of  (Sanga-
   ruon County)	•   Nov. 16,1973
 Riverwoods, village of (Lake
   County)  	   Mar. 1,1974
 Robinson, city of (Crawford
   County)  	   May 31, 1374
 RomeoviUe,  village of (Will
   County)  	   Mar. 29, 1974
 Rbseville, village of (Warren
   County)	   May 17,1974
 Rosiclare,  city of  (Hardin
   County)  	   Dec. 17, 1973
 Bound Lake Park, village of
   (Lake County)	   Mar. 29,1974
 Rush villa,  city of (Schuyler
   County)  	   Mar. 1,1974
 Sheridan,   village  of   (La
   Salle County)—	   Apr. 12,1974
 Sidney, village of (Cham-
   paign County)	   Jan. 16,1974
 Silvis, city  of  (Bock Island
   County)	   May 31,1974
 Smithton.   village  of   (St.
   Clair County)	  Mar. 29, 1974
 South Harrington, village of
   (Cook County)	  Mar. 22,1974
 South Chicago Heights,  vil-
   lage of (Cook County)...  Apr. 12,1974
 South Jacksonville,  city of
   (Morgan  County)	  Mar.29,1974
 Sparland, village  of  (Mar-
   shall County)	  Nov. 23, 1973
 Springfield,  city of (Sanga-
   mon County)	  June 7,197-1
 Staunton, city of (Macoupin.
   County) 	  May 17, 1974
 Stickney,  village of  (Cock
   County)		  Mar. 29, 1974
 St. Franclsville,  village  of
   (Lawrence County)	      Do.
 St. Joseph, village of (Cham-
   paign County)	  Nov. 23, 1S73
 Sugar   Grove,  village   of
   (Kaus County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
 SummerSeld, village  of  (St.
   Clair County)	  May 3, 1974
 Sumner, citjr of (Lawrence
   County)  	  Mar. 1,1974
 Sycamore, city of  (De Kalb
   County)  —		  Apr. 5,1974
 Tallula, village  of  (Menard
   County)  	  Mar. 29,1974
 Tamms, village of (Alexander
   County)  	  May 10,1974
 Teutopolia, village of (Efflng-
  ham County)	  Feb. 22,1974
 Thayer, village of  (Sanga-
  mon County)	  Mar. 22,1974
 Toluca, city  of (Marshall
  County)  	  Apr. 5,1974
 Toulon,   city   of    (Stark
  County)  	  May 31,1974
 Tuscola,  city  of  (Douglas
  County)  	   Nov. 30,1973
Valley  City,  village of (Pike
  County)  	   Dec. 17,1973
Verona, village of (Grundy
  County)  	   May 3,1974
 Victoria, village  of   (Knox
  County)	   June?, 1974
Virginia,  city  of   (Cass
  County) 	   Apr. 5,1974
 Wadsworth,  village of (Lake
  County) 	   Mar. 1, 1974
Wataga,  village of   (Knox   •
  County) 	   June 7, 1974
West  Chicago,  city of  (Du
  Pigs>  County)	   Apr. 12, 1074
West   Sundew,  v!ll.ige  of
  (Kane  County)	   Apr. 5,1974
                                    2W4.J

             Illinois—Continued
                                 jDtte of
                              Identification
 Wheeler, village of  (Jasper
   County)  	   Feb. 2i 1974
 White nail, city ol (Greene
   County)  	   A?r. ^ 1374
 Winslow,  village-  of   (Ste-
   pheioson  County)	__   JiJar. 13, J374
 Wintarop Harbor,  Tlllas'e of
   (Laie  County)	,	   V^r. Si. 137-1
 Yates City, village of  (Kaox
   County)  	   June 14, 1974
       Total	   1S9
                  In&.cma

 Albion,  town   o*  (Noble
   County)  	   June 7,1974
 Alton, town of  (Crawford
   County)  	   Jan. 23; 1974
 Andrews, town of (Hunting-
   ton County)	   June 7.1974
 Arcadia,  town of (Hamilton
   County)  	   Feb. L, 1974
 Attica,  city  of  (Fountain
   County)  	   Dec. 7,1973
 Austin,  city   of   (Scott
   County)		__.	.  HOT. 23.1913
 Battle Ground, city of  (Tip-
   pecanoe County)	   May 24, 1974
 Bicknell, town  of   (Kcox
   County)  	   Kay 17.13-7*
 Bloomaeld,  town of (Greene
   County)  	,	   Nov. 23,1973
 Boon7i:is, city  of  (Warrtck
   County)  	   Dee. 2d, 1973
 Bremen,  town of (Marshall
   County)  		   NOT. 23,1373
 Bristol,  town, of  (Sfchart
   County)  	._      Do.
 Brooklyn, town of (Horgan
   County)  	   Dec. 7, 1373
 Brown County,  unincorpo-
   rated  area	  Apr, 13, 1973
 Browcstiiirg, town of (Kend-
   ricfc. County)	  Nov. 23, 1073
 BroTTOitown, town of (Jack-
   son County)	      Do,
 Burlington, town of (Carroll
   County)  	      Do,
 Camcleri.  town  of  (Carroll
   County)  	      Do.
 Cayuga, town of (Veraiililon
   County)  	  May 31,1974
 Cedar   Grove,   town   of
   (Franklin County).	  Dec. 7,1973
 Cedar Lake, town  of  (Iai»
   County)  	  Dso. 23, 1973
 Chandler, town  of  (Warrlck
   County)  	  Jan.9,1974
 Charlestown, city of -(Clark
   County) 	  Apr. 12.1974
 Churubusco, town of (Whit-
   ley  County)	  May 31. 1974
 Columbia  City,   city   of
   (Whitley  County)	  Dec. 17,1973
 Converse, town  of  (10am!
   County) 		  Ma? 17, 1974
 Covtngton, city of (Fountain
   County) 	  Jan. 9,1974-
 Decker,   town  of   (Knox
   County) 	  Feb. 1,  J974
 Delphi,   city  of  (Carroll
   County) 			  Nov. 23,1973
Denver,   town  of   (Miami
   County)	  Feb. I,  1071
Eaton,  town  of  (Delaware
  County) 	 Nov. 23, 1973
Edwardsport, town of (Knos
   County) 	      Do.
English, town of (Crawford
  County) 	,.--  ApT. 12, 1S74
Falrmount,  town, of (Grant
  County) 	'	  Ma? 24, 1974
Fountain   City,   city   oS
   (Wayne County)	 May 10,1974
French   Lick,   town   ol
   (Orange County)	 Feb. 1, 1974
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 40, NO.  123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE  25,  1975
-------
 26744

            Indiana—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Gosport,  town  of  (Owen
   County)  	  Nov. 23, 1073
 Greenfield, city of (Hancock
   County)  	      Do.
 Hartford   City,    city   of
   (Blackford  County)	      Do.
 Hazleton,  town of  (Gibsoa
   County)  	      Do.
 Hillsboro, town of (Fountain
   County)  __	  Feb. 1, 1974
 Huntertown, town of (Allen
   and De Kalb Counties)...  May 31, 1974
 Euntlngton, city of (Hunt-
   ing-ton County)	  June 7,1974
 Jonesboro,  town  of  (Grant
   County)  	  Dec. 7, 1973
 Judson,   town  of   (Parke
   County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
 Keatland,  town of (Newton
   County)  			  May 24,1974
 Knightstown,   town    of
   (Henry County)	  Nov. 30, 1973
 Lacrosse, town of  (Laporte
   County)	  May 31, 1974
 Ladoga,  town  of  (Mont-
   gomery County)	  May 24, 1974
 Lagro,  town   of   (Wabasii
   County)   	     Do.
 Leaven worth, town of (Craw-
   ford County)	   Nov. 30,1973
 Lebanon,  city  of  (Boone
   County)   			   May3, 1974
 Marengo, town of (Crawford
   County)  	,	   Feb. 1,1974
 Mecca,   town  of   (Parke
   County)  	   Jan. 23,1974
 Medora,  town of  (Jackson
   County)  	,	   Nov. 23, 1973
 Milltown, town of (Crawford
   and Harrison Countyss) —  Nov. 30,1973
 Monterey, town of  (Pulaski
   County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
 Montpelier,  town of  (Black-  -
   ford County)	  Dec. 7, 1973
 New Palestine, town of (Han-
   cock County)		  Nov. 30,1973
 New  Whitelaud,   town  of
   (Johnson  County)	  Jan. 16,1974
 Newberry, town of (Greene
   County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
 Newport, town of (Vermil-
   lion County)	  May 31,1974
 North Vernon, city of (Jen-
   nings County)	  Nov. 30,1973
 Oakland  City, city of (Gib-
   son County)	  May 10,1974
 Ogden Dunes,  town of (Por-
  ter  County)	  May 31, 1974
 Orland,  town of  (Steuben
  County)  	      Do.
 Orleans,  town of  (Orange
  County)  	      Do.
 Osceola, town of (St. Joseph
  County)  		  Dec. 17, 1973
Paoli,  town  of   (Orange
  County)  —	  Nov. 23, 1973
Paragon,  town of  (Morgan
  County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
Pennville, town of (Wayne
  County)  	,	      Do.
Plainfiald,  town  of  (Hen-
  dricks  County)	      Do.
Remington,  town of  (Jasper
  County)  	  May 31, 1974
Rldgevtlle,  town  of  (Ran-
  dolph County)	  Nov. 30, 1973
Biley,   town   of   (Vigo
  County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
Soar.::,  town  ot  (Wabash
  C-->".r>.ty)  	  D-x:. 7,1973
Roo-i. '<3. to-vn of  (Huntlnij-
  l"n County)	  Dec. 28,1973
Rochester,  city of  (Fulton
  County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
Ro;cclale,  town  of  (Parke
  County)  		_  Nov. 30, 1973
                 NOTICES

            Indiana—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification.
 Rushville,  city  of  (Rush
   County)  	„   Dec. 7, 1973
 Schneider,  town  of  (Lake
   County)  		   Dec. 17,1973
 Sellersburg,  town of (Clark
   County)  	   Nov. 23, 1973
 South   Whitley,  town   of
   (Whitley County) 	..-_   Dec. 21, 1973
 Spencervllle, town of (Dekal'o
   County)  			   Feb. 13, 1974
 Spencer,   city  of   (Owen
   County)  	   Dec. 17,1973
 Spring Lake Park, town  of
   (Hancock  County)	   Feb. 1, 1974
 Springport, town of  (Henry
   County)  	      Do.
 StlnesvUle, town of (Monroe
   County) 	      Do.
 St. Joe, town of  (De Kalb
   County) 	   Dec. 7, 1973
 Sulphur  Springs,  town  of
   (Henry County)	   Feb. 1,1974
 Tennyson,  town of (War-
   rick  County)	      Do.
 Tipton,   cit.y  of   (Tipton
   County) 	   Dec. 28, 1973
 Troy, town  of (Perry Coun-
   ty) 	-	   May 31,1974
 Universal, town  of  (Vermll-
   lion  County)	   Feb. 1,1974
 Veedersburg, town of (Foun-
   tain  County)	   Dec. 17,1973
 Vera  Cruz,  town of  CVtslls
   County) 	,	  Dec. 7, 1973
 Wabash,  city of   (Wabash
   County) 	   June 7,1974
 Walkerton,   town  of  (St.
   Joseph • County)	  Nov. 23, 1973
 Walton,  town   of  (Cass
   County) 			  May 17,1974
 Waveland, town of  (Mont-
   gomery County)	  May 24,1974
 Waynetown, town of (Mont-
   gomery County)	  May 31,1974
 West Baden Springs, town  of
   (Orange County)	  Dec. 28,1973
 Westfield, town of (Hamilton
   County)  	_	  Feb. 1,1974
 Whitestown, town of (Boone
   County)  	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Williamsport, town of (War-
   ren County)	  Dec. 17,1973
 Wlnona Lake, town of (Kos-
   clusko County)	  May 3,1974
 Winsiow,  town   of  (Pike
   County)  	  Dee. 17,1973
 Wolcott,  town  of   (White
   County)  	  June 14,1974
 Worthlngton,    town    of
   (Greene  County)	  Nov. 23,1973
      Total  	-  109
           Iowa
 Anthon, town of (Woodbury
  County) 	  Jan. 23,1974
 Atlantic,  city  of   (Cass
  County)	  May3,1974
 Bedford, town of   (Taylor
  County) 	  Feb. 1,1974
Belmond,  city  of  (Wright
  County) 	  May3,1974
Bonaparte,  city  of  (Van
  Buren County)	  Jan. 9,1974
Cascade, city of  (Dubuque
  Coxuvty) 	  Dec. 17,1973
Centerville,  city  of  (Appa-
  noose County)	  Mar. 22,1974
 'lear  Lake,  city  of  (Cerro
  Oordo County)	  May 24,1974
   fax.   city  of   (J,\oper
  Co'i'it?) -'	  Jin. 23, 1974
Columbus Junction,  city  of
   (Louisa County)	  Jan. 9,1974
Danbury, city of  (Wootibury
  County) 		-'   Do.
              Iowa—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Donnellson,  town of  (Lee
   County) 	-	  May 10,3974
 Dow City, town of (Crawford
   County)			  May 31, 1974
 Dumont, town  of  (Butler
   County) 	  May 24, 1974
 Dunlap,  town of (Harrison
   County) 	  May 17, 1974
 Eldon,   town  of  (Wapello
   County) 	  Dec. 17, 1973
 Exlra,  town  of  (Audubon
   County) 	  May 10, 1974
 Fredertcksburg,   town   of
   (Chickasaw  County)	  May 3,1974
 Granger, town  of  (Dallas
   County) 	  Mar. 22,1974
 Greene,  town  of  (Butler
   County) 	  May 17, 1974
 Guthrie  Center,  city  of
   (Guthrie County)	     Do.
 Hamburg, city of (Fremont
   County) 	  June 14, 1974
 Hills City, city of (Johnson
   County) 	  Dec. 28,1973
 Hudson,  town  of   (Black
   Hawk County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
 Indianola, city of (Warran
   County) .„	  June 7, 1974
 Janesvllle, town  of (Black
   Hawk and Bremer Coun-
   ties)   	'.	 Dec. 28, 1973
 Lansing, town of  (Allamakee
   County) 	  Jan. 16, 1974
 Le Mars, city of  (Plymouth
   County) 	      Do.
 Malvern, town  of  (Mills
   County) 	  Mar. 8,1974
 Marlon,  city   of   (Linn
   County) 	  Mar. 1, 1974
 Montrose,  town  of   (Lee
   County)	_	  Jan. 23, 1974
 Mount Vernon, city of (Linn
   County) 	  Mar. 8, 1974
 New Albin, town of (Allama-
   kee County)	  May 17, 1974
 Oxford,  town  of  (Johnson
   County) 		  May 10, 1974
 Raymond, town  of  (Black
   Hawk County)	',	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Riverdale,  town  of   (Scott
   County) 	  Jan. 23, 1974
 Rockford, town of (Floyd and
   Howard Counties)	  Feb. 1,1974
 Sac  City,  city  of  (Sac
   County) 	  Dec. 28,1973
 Sergeant  Bluff,   town  of
   (Woodbury County) _;	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Sibley,   city  of  (Osceola
   County)			  May 17,1974
 Sigourney, city of (Keokuk
   County) 	  Mar. 15,1974
 Sioux   Rapids,   town   of
   (Buena Vista County)	  May 10, 1974
 Sloan, town  of (Woodbury
   County)		-  May 24,1974
 Spirit Lake, city of (Dickin-
  son County	  May 31,1974
 Story City,  city  of  (Story
  County) 	      Do.
 Sumner,  city  of  (Bremer
  County)	  May 3,1974
 Tipton,   city   of   (Cedar
  County)		Mar. 29,1974
 Wapello,  city  of  (Louisa
  County)	Jan. 16,1974
 Waukon, city of (Allamakee
  County)	  K'ar. 22,1974
West Branch, city of  (Oclsr
  County)	•	ilar. 3, 1974
What Cheer, city of (KeokuS
  County)	_-	,  JBCU B* 107^
      Total „	—  61
                                FEDERAL RSGISTE3, VOL 40, NO.  123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE  25, 1975
-------
                  Kansas
 Vina,  city of  (Wabaunsee
 " 'county)		
 Airaeni,  city   of   (Norton
  County) 	
 AjbUnd,  city   of   (Clark
  County)	
 Axuusta.  city  of  (Butler
  County) 	
 jjtoehor.  city  of  (Leaven-
  wortii County)		
 Bixter Springs, city of (Cher-
  okee  County)	
 Bclieveiile, city of (Repub-
  lic County)	
 Beloit,   city  of  (Mitchell
  County) 	•	
 Burrton,  city  of  (Harvey
  County) 	
 Caney, city of (Montgomery
  County) 	
 Carijondala,  city  of  (Osage
  County) 	
 Centralia, city  of  (Nemaha
  County) 	
 Clyde,    city   of   (Cloud
  County) 	
 Columbus, city of (Cherokee
  County) —,	
 Deerfield, city  of  (Kearny
  County) 	
 Edgarton, city  of  (Johnson
  County) 	
Elkhart,  city   of  (Morton
  County) 	
Ellinwood, city  of  (Barton
  County) 	
Ellsworth, city of (Ellsworth
  County) 	
Eureka, city of (Greenwood
  County) 	
Frankfort, city  of (Marshall
  County) 	
Fredonia, city  of  (Wilson
  County) 	
Gardner, city  of  (Johnson
  County) 	
Garnett, city of  (Anderson
  County) 	
Graadview Plaza,  city  of
  (Geary County)	
Hiawatha, city  of   (Brown
  County) 	
Holton,  city  of  (Jackson
  County) 	
Jetmore, city of (Hodgeman
  County) 	
Johnson City, city of (Stan-
  ton County)	
La  Cygne,  city  of  (Linn
  County)  	
Lecompton, city of (Douglas
  County) 	
Leroy,    city   of   (Coffey
  County) 	
Lincoln,  city   of  (Lincoln
  County).	
Loutsburg, city of  (Miami,
  County) 	
Lyndon,   city   of   (Osage
  County) 	
Marquette, city of (McPher-
  sou County)	
McLouth, city  of (Jefferson
  County) 	
Minneola,  city  of  (Claris
  County) 	
Mollne,   city    of   (Elk
  County) 	
Mound  City, city of (Linn
  Cfiuuty) 	
Nortouville, city of (Jefferson
  County)  	
Norton,  city   of  (Norton
  Cc :i;!.v-)  	
 Og-ian,   city   of   (Blley
  County)  	
   Date of
Identification

 Mar. 8,1974

 Mar. 1, 1974

 May 17, 1974

 Feb. 1,1974

 Apr. 12,1974

 May 24,1974

 Feb. 15, 1974

 Dec. 7,1973

Mar. 15, 1974

Feb. 15, 1974

May 24, 1974

    Do.

May 31, 1974

Mar. 1, 1974

Dec. 28,  1973

Mar. 8, 1974

May 24, 1974-

Mar. 15, 1974

Dec. 28, 1973

Apr. 12, 1974

Jan. 23, 1974

Jan. 23,1973
May 3, 1974

Feb. 8, 1974

Feb. 1, 1974

Aug. 9, 1974

Feb. 8, 1974

Feb. 22, 1974

Mar. 1, 1974

May 24, 1974

Mar. 15, 1974

Jan. 23, 1974

Dec. 28, 1973

Mar. 8, 1974

Mar. 1,1974

    Do.

Dec. 17, 1973

Mar. 22, 1974

Feb. 8, 1974

Feb. 22, 1974

Mar. 1, 1974

    Do.

 Feb. 15, 1974
b' 8l 197*
               NOTICES

           Kansas — Continued
                               Date of
                            Identification
Osas;e  City, city  of (Osage  June 7. 1974
  County)  ----------------
Osborne, city of  (Osborne  Mar. 1. 1974
  County)  ________________
Oskaloosa,  city of  (Jefferson  Mar. 15, 1974
  County)  ________________
Ottawa,  city  of   (Fraixilin  May 24, 1974
  County)  ----------------
Pomona, city of  (Franklin  Jan- 9- 1974
  County)  .......... ------
Biley,    citjrx  of   (Eiley
  County)  .2 ............ ..  _, h  ,= ,„,<
Boeland Park, city of (John-         '
  son County) -------------  May 31. 1974
Hossvilie, city of  (Shawnee
  County)  ............. —  Jan. 9, 1974
P.ussell,  city  of  (P.ussell
  County)  .. ....... -------  Feb. 8, 1974
                            Nov. 8, 19V3
Syracuse, city of (Hamilton  Jan. 9  1974
Troy,  city  of   (DorSphan
  County)  _ ........ -------  FeD. 15_ 1974
Waverly,   city  of  (Coffey
  County)  _______________      DO.
Wellsville,  city of (Franklin
  County)  ________________      DO.
Westmoreland, city of  (Pot-
  tawatomie  County) ______  Mar. 8, 1974
      Total ---------------  57

                 Kentucky

Albany,  city  of  (Clinton
  County)  ..... --------- r.  May 10, 1974
Allen,    town   of   (Floyd
  County)  ----------------  Jan. 23, 1974
Arlington,  town of (Carlisle
  County)  ----------------  May 17, 1974
Bardstown, city  of  (Nelson
  County)  ----------------  May 31, 1974
Bardwell,  town  of (Carlisle
  County)  ----------------  May 17, 1971
Bloomneld, city  of  (Nelson
  County)  ________________  May 10, 1974
Booneville, city  of (Owsley
  County)  . ....... ... .....  Feb. 1,1974
Bradfordsville, city of (Mar-
  ion  County) _____________  May 10, 1974
Brodhead,   city   of  (Bock
  Castle County) __________  May 17, 1974
Burgui,  city  of   (Mercer
  County)  ________________  May 10, 1974
Burkesville, city of (Cumber-
  land County) ____________  Feb. 15, 1974
Calhoun, town of (McLean
  County)  ________________  Feb. 1, 1974
California, village of (Camp-
  bell  County) ....... ______  Mar. 15, 1974
Calvert City, town of (Mar-
  shall County) * ___________  Feb. 1. 1974 -
Campbellsvilie, city of  (Tay-
  lor County) ______________  May 24, 1974
Campton,  city   of  (Wola
  County)  ________________  May 17, 1974
Catlettsburg town of (Boyd
  County)  ________________  May 3, 1974
Central  City, city of (Muh-
  lenberg,  County) _________  Feb. 1, 1974
Clay City, city  of  (Powell
  County)  ________________      DO.
Clay,   city   of    (Webster
  County)  ----------------      Do.
Clinton, town of  (Hlckman
  County)  ________________  May 17, 1974
Corbin,  city  of  (Whitley
  County)  _______________  June 14, 1974
Danville,  city   of   (Boyle
  County)  — ........... ___  May 31. 1974
Dawson  Springs,  city  of
   (Hopkins  County) _______  Feb. 1, 1974
Falmouth, city  of (Pandle-'
   ton  County) _____________  May 24, 1974
F'.srrin-jsbur;*.   town    oi
   i ;• ; ""'.rts; County) ________   Juua 7, 1374
Florence,  town  of (3oone
  County) ________________  Feb. 1, 1974
                                  26745

          Kentucky—Continued
                               Date of
                            Identification
Fort "Thomas, city of (Camp-
  bell County)	  Ju-i- 25, 1374
                            an I
                            Oct. 18, 1974
Georgetown,  city of  (Scott
  County) 	  May 24, 1974
Cheat,  town  of  (Carroll
  County) 	  Jan. 16, 1974
Glencoe, city of  (Gallatia
  County) 	„	  Feb. 1, 1974
Grayson,  city  of   (Carter
  County) 	      Do.
Greeciburg, city  ol (Green
  County)	_      Do.
Greenup, town of (Greenup
  County) 	  Jan. 23, 1974
Guthrie.  town   of  (Todd
  County	__  June 7, 1974
Hardin, city  of   (Marshall
  County) 	,	„,	  June 14. 1974
Hard;n, town of  fMarsnaU
  County) 	  May 10, 1974
Harrodsburg, city of (Mer-
  cer County)	      Do.
Hindman,  city  of  (Eaott-
  County)	  May 31, 1374
Hodgenville, town of (Lartte
  County)	,—  May 17.1874.
Hydeu,   city  of   (Leslie
  County)  	  ilay 341, 1374
Jackson, city c£  (Bre»S£Uti
  County)  	,_,	  May 17,1374
Jamestown,  city of (Sussell
  County)  	  May 10,1974
Jenkins, city  of  (Letcljer
  County)  	  June 7, 1374
Lebanon Junction,  city  of
  (BulHtt County)	  Mar, 15,1974
LeitchaeJd, town of  (Graysoa
  County)  	  May 10,197-4
Hverraore, town of  (McLeaa
  County)  	  Peb. 1, i&7i
Manchester,  cKy  of  (Clay
  County)  	.     Do.
Martin,  town  of   (Floyd
  County)  		  May 24. 1374
Millarsburg, city of (Bourbon.
  County)  	  May 10. 1974
Monticello, town  of (\vayne
  County)  	,_-  S£aj£i, 1971
Morganfieid, town of (Union
  County).  	  May 17.1374
Morsantown, town  of (But-
  ler County) ,	  Feb. 1,'£74
Mortons Qap. to-.vii  of (Hop-
  kins County)	  May 17.1371
Mount  Sterling,   clt"   of
  (Montgomery County) —  May 10. 1974
Neon,   town  of   (Letcher
  County)  	  Jaa.23,1974
New Haven, city  of (Nelson
  County)  	     Do.
Nortonvilie,  town of (Hop-
  kins County)	  May 17,1974
Olive Hill,  city  of (Carter
  County)	  Feb., 1. 1974
Petersburg,  town of (Boon*
  County)  	  Jan. 23, 1974
Princeton, town of (Caldwell
  County)  	_..	  MaySl, 1974
Providence,  city of  (Webster
  County)  		  Feb. 1, 1974
Raceland, town of (Greenup
  County)  		  Feb. 8, 1974
Roche5ter,  town  of (Butler
  County)  	  Feb. I, 1B74
Bockport,  town  of  (Ohio
  County)  		__     Do.
Russell, town of  (Greenup
  County)  	  Feb. 3, 1974
SalyerevUle, town of (Magof-
  ftn County)	  Feb. 22,1374
Sander-s, town  of   (Carroll
  Count?)  	  Jan. 23,107-t
Sebree,  city  of   (Webster
  County)  		  May 17, 1D74
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 25, 1975
-------
 20743

           Kentucky—Continued
                                Date of
                            Identification
 Shepherdiville, city ol (Bul-
  I:ct County)	  May 24,1074
 Srultiiland, town of (Living-
  ston County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
 South   Shore,   town   of
  (Oreenup County)	    Do.
 Sparta,  city  of  (Gallatin
  County)  	    Do,
 Stanton,  city  of   (Powell
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
 Taylorsville, town of (Spen-
  cer County)	  Feb. 1,1974
 Unlontown, town of (Union
  County)  	  May 17,1974
 Vinceburg, town of  (Lewis
  County)  		  Feb. 1, 1974
 Vlcco,    city   of    (Perry
  County)  „	  May 10, 1974
 Vine Grove, city of (Hardin
  County)  	  May 17,1974
 Visalia,  city   of   (Kenton
  County)  	,_  Jan. 23,197*
Warsaw,  city of  (Qallatln
  County)  			  Feb. 1, 1974
Wheat Croft,  town of (Web-
  ster County)  		  Feb. 15, 1974
Winston Park, town of (Web-
  ster County)  	  Jan. 23, 1974
Woodbury,  town of  (Butler
  County)  		„  Feb. 1, 1974
 Worthville, town of (Carroll
  County)  	  Jan. 23, 1974
      Total —	  86
                Louisiana

 Abita Springs, town of  (St.
  Tammany Pariah)	  May 17,1974
 Albany, Village of  (Living-
  ston Parish)  _.	-  Apr. 12, 1974
 Baslle, town  of (Evaagsliae
  Parish) 	—  May 24, 1974
Bastrop, city of (Morehous*
  Parish) 	  Mar. 15,1974
 Benton,  town  of  (Bossier
  Parish) 	—  June 14, 1974
Boyce,  town  of  (Rapides
  Parish) 	  Apr. 5, 1974
Brousaard.  town of  (Lafay-
  ette Parish)	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Clarence, village of (Natchi-
  toches Parish)	  Mar. 1, 1974
Cousbatta,  town  of (Red
  River Parish) 	—  Apr. 12,1974
Denham  Springs,   city  of
  (Livingston Parish) _,	  Mar. 15,1974
Doyline, village, of  (Webster
  Parish) 	  Apr. 5, 1974
Duson, town of  (Lafayette
  Parish) 		    Do.
Grand Coteau,  town of  (St.
  Landry Parish)	  Dec. 7,1973
Independence,   town   of
  (Tangipahoa Parish)	  May 17,1974
Kinder,  town   of   (Allen
  Parish) 	  Apr. 6, 1974
Le Compte, town of (Rapides
  Pailsh) 	.	May 17,1974
Mermen t«u, town of (Acadla
  Parish) 	  Nov. 23,1974
Morse,  town  of   (Acadla
  Parish) 	  Nov. 23, 1973
Pearl  River,  town  of  (St.
  Tammany Parish)	  May 24, 1974
Provencal, village of (Natchi-
  toches Parish)	    Do.
Ringgold, town of (Blenville
  Parish)		-  May 3, 1974
Rcbeline, vlllag-e of  (Natchl-
  toches Parish.)	  Apr. 12, 1973
Roseland, town of (Tanglpa-
  ItOA Pariah)	  Oct.28,1973
 SSc.117  Is! And,   Village  of
  (Catatoula Parish) ".	  Dec. 28, 1973
Sterllngton, town of  (Oua-
  chlta Parish)		_  D*c. 17, 1973
                NOTICES

          Louisiana—Continued
                               Sate of
                            Identification
Ville Platte, town of (Evan-
  gellne Pariah,)	  May 17, 1S71
Winnfleld,  town of (Wlnn
  Parish)  	-	_  Nov. 16, 1973
      Total		—  27
          Maine

Ashland, town of (Aroostook
  County) 	  June 14, 1974
Buxton,  town  of   (York
  County) 	  Apr. 5,1974
Dexter,  town of (Penobscot
  County) 	  Mar. 15, 1974
Glenburn, town of  (Penob-
  scot County) 	  Mar. 1, 1974
Hollis,   town   of    (York
  County) 	  May 31, 1974
Llmlngton,  town of  (York
  County) 	    Do.
Lisbon, town of  (Androscog-
  gin County)	„	  Feb. 15, 1974
Minot, town  of  (Androscog-
  gin County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
Phillips, town of (Franklin "
  County) 	  June 14, 1974
Poland, town of (Androscog-
  gln County)—		  Feb. 22, 1974
Richmond,  town of (Saga-
  dohoc County)	  May 31, 1974
Sabattus, town of (Andros-
  coggin County)	      Do.
Scarborough, town of (Cum-
  berland County)..	  May 17,1974
South   Portlandf   city  of
  (Cumberland County)	  Fe.b. 23, 1974
Strong,  town of (Franklin
  County) 	  June 14, 1974
Van Buren, town of (Aroos-
  took County)	      Do.
     Total -	  16
                Maryland

Williamsport,    town    of
  (Washington County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
     Total	-	-  1
              Massachusetts

Amesbury,  town of (Essex
  County) 	  June 14, 1975
Athol,  town  of (Worcester
  County) 	  Mar. 8, 1974
Barre,  town  of  (Worcester
  County) 	  May 17, 1974
Brewster,  town  of  (Barn-
  stable County)	  Mar. 15,1974
Brookfleld, town of (Worces-
  ter County)		  May 3, 1974
Buckland, town  of  (Frank-
  lin County)		  May 31, 1974
Chatham,  town of  (Barn-
  stable County)	      Do.
East  Brookfleld, town  of
  (Worcester  County)	  June 7, 1974
Edgartown, town of  (Dukes
  County) 	  May 31,1974
Everett, city  of (Middlesex
  County)	  June 7,1974
Fltchburg, city of (Worcester
  County) 	  Apr. 5, 1974
Gill,  town   of  (Franklin
  County) 	-  Mar. 15, 1974
Graf ton, town of (Worcester
  County) 	  Apr. 5, 1974
Holland, town of (Hampden
  County) 	—	  June 7, 1974
Leonmlnster,     town    of
  (Worcester  County)	  Mar. 22, 1974
Monterey,  town of  (Berk-
  shire County)	  Mar. 15, 1974
Orange,  town of (Franklin
  County) 	-	-  May 31, 1S74
        ri, to-»-n  of (Worces-
  ter  County)	.	  May 17, 1974
Sunderland, town of (Frank-
  lin County)	  Mar, 8, 1974
        Massacli usetts—Con tinu ert
                               Date of
                            Identification-
Warren, town of (Worcester
  County)  	,	  May 17, 1974
Westborough,    town    o'
  (Worcester  County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
Wilbraharri, town of (Hamp-
  den County)	„_.	  May 17, 1974
      Total		-.  22

                Michigan

Almont, village  of  (Lapeer
  County)  			  May 10, 1974
Ash,  township of  (Monroe
  County)  -	_	  June 14, 1974
Bedford, township of (Mon-
  roe County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
De  Witt,  city of (Clinton
  County)  	  Mar. 8, 1974
Flat Rock, city of  (Wayne
  County)  	  May 17, 1974
Frankenmuth, city of (Sagi-
  naw County)	  Jaa. 23, 1974
Grand Ledge, city of (Eaton
  County)  	  May 17,1974
Hastings,  city  of   (Barry
  County)  	  Apr. 12, 1974
Leslie,  city   of  (Ingham
  County)  	  June 14, 197
-------
           .Minnesota—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Ellsworth,  city of  (Nobles
   County)  			  May3,1974
 Elmore.  city  of (Farlbault
   County)  	  May 14,1974
 Evelelh,  city  of (St.  Louis
   County)  	  June 7,1974
 Eyota,   city  of   (Olmsted
   County)  			  Apr.  12, 1974
 Fairfax,  city  of   (Renvllle
   County)  	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Fairmont,  city  of  (Martin
   County)  	  June 7,1974
 Farmington, village of  (Da-
   kota County)	  May 24,1974
 Freeport,  city  of  (Stearns
   County)  	  May 3,1974
 Glen   Feb. 8, 1974
Carrollton, city of (Carroll
  County)  	   Jan. 9, 1974
Carterville, town of (Jaapor
  County)  ....	   Dec. 28. 1973
Carthage,  city  of  (Jasper
  County)  	   Mar. 15, 1974
Center, town of (Rails Coun-
  ty) 			   July 26, 1973
Clinton,   city  of  (Henry
  County)  		_.   Apr. 12, 1974
Conway,  town of  (Laclede
  County)  	   May 10, 1974
Crane, city of (Stone Coun-
  ty)	   Jtm» 7, 1974
Donjphan,  city of  (Hipley
  County)  	   Mar. 1..1974
Duenweg,  city  of  (Jasper
  County)	   May 3, 1974
Eldorado  Springs,  city  ot • • -
  (Cedar County)'	,	   Dec, 28, 1973
Elvins, city of (St. Francois
  County)			,   D«c. 17, 1973
Fairfax* town  of  (Atcniason
  County)		   May 10. 1974
Fisk, City of  (Butler  Coun-
  ty)		,	. Mar. 28, 1974
Fulton, city  of  (Callaway
  County)	   May 17, 1974
Gainesville, town of (Oxsark
  County)  	   D*c. 28, 1973
Garden City, town  of (Cass
  County)  	   Mar. 2$, 1974
Glenaire,  village  of  (Clay
  County)  	   Jnn» 14, 1974
Granby,  city   oX  (Newton
  County)  	   Apr. 12, 1974'
Hardia, city of (Ray  Coun-
  ty) 	,	   June 7, 1974
Harrisonville,  city of (Cass
  County)  	   Mar. IB, 1974
Hillsdale, village of (St. Louis
  County)  	   Apr. 5, 1974
nimo, city of  (Scott  Coun-
  ty) 	.,   May 3, 1974
KinlocU,  city  of  (St. Louis
  County)  	   -7*a. 9, 1974
Laddonia, city of (Audrtiia
  County)  	   JBay S4, 1974
Iiflmar.  town  of  (Barton
  County)  	I	   Dec. 28, 1973
Lilbourn, city  of (New Ma-
  drid County)		   llay 17, 1974
Lincoln,  town of  (Beaton
  County)  	   May 31, 1974
Lutesville, city of (Bellinger    /
  County)  	,   May 10, 1974
Manchester, city of (St. Louis
  County)		   Dec. 17, 1973
Marble Hill, city of (Bollin-
  ger County)	   Hay 10, 1974
Marc&line,  city -of  (Linn
  County)  	   Mar, 29, 1974
Marlonville, city of  (Law-
  rence County)	   May 17, 1974
Marlborough, village of  (St.      ,
  Louis County)	   May 31, 1974
Marston,  city  of  (New Ma-
  drid County)	   May 24, 1974
Mary Ridge, village of  (St.
  Louis County)	   Apr. 5, 1974
Milan,  city   of   (Sullivan
  County)  .....	   Mar. 1,  1974
Naylor,   city   of  (Ripley
  County)  	      Do,
Noel, town of  (McDonald
  County)  		   May 24, 1974
^Y-rborne, city of  (Carroll
  County)  	   Apr. 5. 1974
Owensville, city of (Gascon-
  ade County)	   May 10. 1974
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  40,  NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25,  1975
-------
            Missouri—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Ozark,  city  of   (Christian
   Comity)  		—   Dec. 28, 1973
 Palmyra, city ot (Marion
   County)  	   Mar. 6, 1974
 Paricville,  town  of  (Platte
   County)			   Jan. 16, 1974
 Parma, town of (Mew Madrid
   County)  	   Mar. 29, 1974
 Perryyille,  city  Of  (Perry
   County)			   Mar. 8,1974
 Poplar BluS, city of (Butler
   County)  	      Do,
 Puxico,  town of  (Stoddard
   County)	      Do.
 Scott  City,  city  of  (Scott
   County) 	   Apr. 12, 1974
 Slater,   city  of   (Saline
   County) 	   May 10, 1974
 S'-anberry, city  of (Gentry
   County)	.—   May 17, 1974
 St. Ci&ir, town of (Franklin
   County) _^__—-	Apr. 12, 1974
 Town & Country, city of (St.
   Louis County )_—__.	Dec. 28, 1973
 Trenton,  City of  (Grundy
   County) 	   Feb. 15, 1974.
 Van Buren,  town of (Carter
   County) 	   Jan. 23, 1974
 Vandalla, city of  (Audrain
   County)	   May 17, 1974
 Versailles, city of  (Morgan
   County) 	   Apr. 5,1974
 Vinita  Park, city of  (St.
   Louis County	    Do.
 Warrensburg, city of (John'
   son County)	   Dec. 17,1973
 •Warsaw,  city  of  (Benton
   County) 	   Mar. 29, 1974
 Windsor,  city  of  (Henry
   County) 	.-	   Apr. 5, 1974
      Total  	,	   77
                Montana

 Baker,   city   of    (Pallon
   County)  	  Mar. 16, 1974
 Big Sandy,  town  of (Chou-
   teau County)	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Choteau,  city  of  (Teton
  County)  	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Darby,  town  of   (Ravalli
  County) 	,  Jan. », 1974
 Knnii.  town  of   (Madison
  County)	  Mar. 15, 1974
Forsyth.  city of   (Rosebud
  County)	___
 Fort Benton, city of (Chou-  Mar. 8, 1974
  teau County)	__  May 10, 1974
Glasgow,  city of  (Valley
  County) .	.	  Jan. 9, 1974
 Hot Springs, town of (Sand-
  ers County)	  June 7,1974
Kallspell,  city of (Flatfaead
  County) 	  Feb. 15,1974
Libby,   city  of    (Lincoln
  County) —		  May31,1974
Nashua,  town of  (Valley
  County) 	  Apr. 5, 1974
 Plains,  town of   (Sanders
   County)  	  Mar. 23,1974
Bed Lodge,  City of (Carbon
   Cotmty)  	  May 24,1974
 Three Porks, town of (Galla-
 Twin Bridges, town rf (Madi-  Mar. 29, 1974
  sou County)	
  tin County)	.    Do.
  son County)	
 White  Sulphur Springs, city
   of (Meager County)	May 24,1974
 Whltaftsh, city of  (Flathead
   County)	M&J31.1974
      Total		   18
             -   NOTICES

                Nebraska
                               Date of
                            Identification
 Auburn,  city  of  (Nemaha
  County) 	  Dec. 17,1973
 Bennington,    village    of
   (Douglas  County)	  Feb. 1,1973
 Blue Springs, city of (Gaga
  County)		  Jan. 9, 1974
 Brule,  village  of  (Keith
  County) 	  May 24,1974
 Cairo, town of (Hall County).    Do.
 Clay  Center, city  of (Clay
  County)	_  Mar. 22,1974
 Culberton, village of  (Hitch-
  cock County)	  May 10,1974
 Edgar, city of (Clay County)  Apr. 12,1974
 Elnv Creek, village of (Buf-
  falo County)		  May 31,1974
 Ewing,   village of   (Holt
  County) —	  May 3, 1974
 Fullerton,  city  of  (Nance
  County) 	,  June 7, 1974
 Gibbon,   city  of   (BuSalo
  County)	  May 31,1974
 Harvard,  city  of   (Clay
  County) _.		  Mar. 22,1974
 Hay Springs,  city ot  (Sheri-
  dan County)	.    Do.
 Nlckerson, town of  (Dodge
  County) 	  Jan. 23,1974
 Oakdale, village of (Antelope
  County) 	  Dec. 28,1973
 Ord,   town    of    (Valley
  County) _„	  Apr. 5,1974
 Osceola,   city   of   (Polk
  County) 	  Mar. 22,1374
 Overton, village of (Dawson
  County) —,	  June 14,1974
 O'Neill,   city   of   (Holt
  County) 	  Jan. 23,1574
 Pazton,  Village of  (Keith
  County) 		  May 24,1974
 Ponca,   rity  of    (Dixon
  County)  	  Apr. 12,1S74
 Ralston,   city of  (Douglas
  County)	„  Jan. 23,1974
 Ruahville, city of (Sheridan
  County) 	  MayS, 1974
 Shelton,  village of (Buffalo
  County) 	  Mar. 22,1974.
 Stromsburg,  city  of  (Polk
  County) 			  June 7,1974
 Button,   city   of   (Clay
  County)	,	.,    Do.
Terr town, village of  (Scotts
  Bluff  County)		.  Dec. 17,1973
Wlsner, town of  (Ciimlng
  County) 	  Dec. 7,1973
      Total	  39
                Nevada
 CaUente,  city  of  (Lincoln
  County) 	  Mar. 29,197*
 Carson City; city of (Carson
  City County)	  May 24,1974
Sparks,  city  of   (Washoe
  County) 	•	  Feb. 8,1974
      Total	  3
             New Hampshire
 Allenstown, town of  (Merri-
  zcack County)	,	  Apr. 5,1974
Bath,  town  of   (Grafton
  County) 	  Mar. 1.1974
Bedford,   Town  of  (Hills-
  borough County)	  Mar. 29,1974
Bcnnlngton, town of  (Hills-
  borough County)	  Mar. 8,1974
Boscawen, town of  (Merrt-
  mack County)—	—  Mar. 15.1974
Camp ton, town of  (Grafton
  County) 		—  Apr. 5,1974
Charlestown, town, of (Sulli-
  van. Cnnnfcy)	  May 31, 1374
        New Hampshire—Continued
                               Date of
                            Identif.catk
 Cfcichester,  town of (Merri-
  mack County)	  Apr. 5,1974
 Derring, town of  (Hillsbor-
  ough County)	  Mar. 15,197'
 Epsom, town of (Merrlmack
  County)  	_.—    Do.
 Francestown, town of (Hills-
  borough  County)	  June 14,197
 Franklin, city of (Meirimack
  County)  	  Mar. 8,1974
 Gilsum, town of  (Cheshire
  County)  			  May 31,1ST.
 Gorham,  town  of  (Coos
  County)  		  Mar. 1,1974
 Haverhill, town of  (Grafton
  County)  	  Mar. 8,1974
 Hennicker, town  of (Merri-
  mack County)	  Mar. 15,197'
 Holderness,  town of  (Graf-
  ton County)	  Mar. 22,197
 Hudson, Town of  (Hillsbor-
  ough County)	  Mar. 8,1974
 Litchfleld,  town  of  (Hills-
  borough  County)	  Mar. 15,197
 Littleton,  town of  (Grafton
  County)  		^  May 31.197'
 Meredith,  town of (Belknap
  County)  	  June 14,191
 New Castle, town of (Rock-
  lagham County)	  May 31,197<
 New Hampton, town of (Bel-
  knap County)	  Mar. 8,1974
 Northneld,  town  of (Merri-
  mack County)	,	  Mar. 22,197<
 Northumberland,  town  of
  (Coos County)	  Feb. 22,1974
 Pembroke,  town  oi  (Merrl-
  mack County)	  May 3,1974
 Pittsfield,   town,  of  Merri-
  mack County)	  Mar. 15, 1974
 Plymouth, town of  (Graftou
  County)  	  M
-------
                                                          NOTICES
          New Jersey—Continued
                              Date of
                            Identification
      Arlington, borough, of
  (Borgen. County)	   Mar. 29, 1974
 OfuclTn, borough of (Camden
  County) -		   Feb. 22, 1974
 OgdtJ-istrurg,    borough   of
  (Sussex County)		   May 17, 1974
 pnroau,     borough     of
  Gloucester County)	   Mar. 15, 1974
 prospect  Park,  borough  of
  (Passaio County)	   May 3, 1974
 Bed Bank, borough of (Mon-
  mouth  County)	   Mar. 8, 1974
 Boseland, borough of (Essex
  County) 	   June 29, 1973
 Rutherford, borough of (Ber-
  gsn County)	   Apr. 12, 1974
 Seaside Heights, borough of
  (Ocean  County)	   Mar. 22, 1974
 Shrewsbury,   borough   of
  (Monmouth County)	   June 7, 1974
 Susex,  borough  of (Sussex
  County) 	   June 14, 1974
 Upper Freehold, township of
  (Monmouth  County)	   Mar. 22, 1974
 West  New York,  town  of
  (Hudson County)	   May 31, 1974
 Westville,   borough    of
  (Gloucester County)	   Mar. 8, 1974
 W Infield,     township    of
  (Union  County)	     Do.
 WoodcliH  Lake, borough  of
  (Bergen County)	   Feb. 22, 1974
     Total	,.   31
          New Mexico
 Cimarron, village of (Coifax
  County)		   May 17, 1974
 Hagerman, town of (Cha-ves
  County) 	   May 31, 1974
 Silver City, town of  (Grant
  County) 	   June 14, 1974
 Taos, town of (Taos County).   May 17, 1974
      Total		   4
                New York
 Adams, town of  (Jefferson
  County) 	   May 31,1974
 Alabama, town  of (Genesee
  County) 	   May 3, 1974
 Albion, village  of (Orleans
  County) 	   May 24, 1974
 Alexandria, town of (Jeffer-  .
  son County)	z	   May 31, 1974
Antwerp,  village of (Jeffer-
  son County)	     Do.
Arcade, village of (Wyoming
  County) 		     Do.
 Baldwin,  town o!  (Chemung
  County) 	     Do.
Ballston   Spa,   village   of
  (Saratoga County)	     Do.
Barker,  town  of  (Broome
  County) 	   Feb. 15, 1974
 Batavia,  town o"  (Genesee
  County) 	   May3,1974
Baxter Estates,  village  of
  (Nassau County)	   June 14, 1974
 Bolivar, village  of  (Allegany
  County) 	   May 17, 1974
Boonville, village of (Onelda
  County) 	   May 31,1974
Boston,   town   of   (Erie
  County)		   Apr. 12, 1974
Brant,    town   of   (Erie
  County) 	   June 14, 1974
 Bridge-water,    village    of
  (Oneida County)	.   May 17, 1974
 Brockport, village of (Mon-
  roe  County)	   May 31, 1974
 Cambria, town of (Niagara
  County) 	   Apr. 12,1974
 Canaseroga, Tillage of (Alle-
  gany County)	_   May 1O, 1974
 Csnastota, village of  (Madi-
  son County)	,   Mar. 29. 1974
         New Afezleo—Continued
                               Date of
                            Identification
Candor,  village  of  (Tloga
  County)	  May 31, 1974
Cagtleton on  the  Hudson,
  village   of    (Rensselaer
  County) 	  Mar. 1, 1974
Celoron,  village  of (Chau-
  tauqua County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
Central Square, village  of
  (Oswego County)	  May 17, 1974
Champion, town of (Jeffer-
  son County)	  May 31, 1974
Champlaln, village of (Clin-
  ton County)	...    Do.
Chaumout, village of (Jeffer-
  son County)	  May 17, 1974
Chenango, town of (Broome
  County) 	  Mar. 8,1974
Cherry  Creek,  village  of
  (Chautauqua County)	  May 10, 1974
Clncinnatus. town  of (Cort-
  land  County)	  Apr. 5, 1974
Claytton, town of (Jefferson
  County) 	  June 14, 1974
Clayvllle, village Of (Oneida
  County)	,	  May 24, 1974
Cleveland, village of (Oswego
  County) 	  May 31, 1974
Clyde,  village  of  (Wayne
  County) 	_.	    Do.
Cold Spring, village of (Put-
  nam County).,	  Mar. 8, 1974
Columbia, town  of (Herkl-
  mer  County)		  Mar. 29, 1974
Constantia, town of (Oswego
  County)  		  Apr. 5,1974
Croghan, village of (Lewis
  County)  	  May 31,1974
Danube, town  of  (Herklmer
  County)  	  Apr. 5, 1974
De Ruyter, village of (Madi-
  son County)		  May 24,1974
Dickinson, town of (Broome
  County) 	  Mar. 8,1974
Dobbs   Perry,  village  of
  (Westchester County)	  May 17,1974
EarlviUe, village of  (Madison.
  County)  	  May 31,1974
East  Syracuse,  village  of  -
  (Onondaga County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Eaton,  town  of   (Madison
  County) 		  May3, 1974
Elmsford, village of  (West-
  Chester County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Evans Mills, village of  (Jef-
  ferson  County)—	  May 17,1974
Fairfield, town of (Herklmer
  County)  „	  Mar. 29.1974
Falconer, village of (Chau-
  tauqua  County)	  Feb. 22,1974
Filmore, village of  (Allegany
  County)  	  Feb. 1,1974
Florida,  village  of Orange
  County)  	  Mar. 22,1974
Fonda, village of (Montgom-
  ery County)	  Mar. 1,1974
Fort Ann, village of (Wash-
  ington County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Fort  Johnson,  village  of
  (Montgomery County)	Mar. 16,1974
FrankliuvUle,   village   of
  (Cattaraugus county)	  May 31,1974
Franklin,  village  of (Dela-
  ware County)	     Do.
Freedom, town of (Cattaraur
  gus County)	     Do.
Freeville, village of (Tomp-
  kln County)	     Do.
Galway,  town of  (Saratoga
  County)  		  June 14,1974
Glen Park, village of (Jeffer-
  son County)	  Mar. 29,1974
Gouverneur. village of  (St.
  Lawrence  County)	  May 24,1974
Granny,  town of  (Oswego
  County)  	-  Maya, 1974
          New Mexico—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Greene, village of (Chenango
   County) 		  Apr. 12,1974
 Groton. village of (Tompklns
   County) 	^-     Do
 Hamilton, town of (Madison
   County) 	.	.	„-  May 31, "374
_Harrlm»n, village of  (Orange
   County) 	  Mar. 8, 1974
 Haverstraw, village of (Book-
   land County)	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Hobart. village of (Delaware
   County)	'„-  May 24, 1974
 Holland,   town  of  (Erte
   County) 	  June H; 1974
 Hudson  Falls,   village  of
   (Washington  County)—,  May 31,1974
 Ischua, town of (Cattaraugus
   county) 	     Do.
 Keesevllle, village of (Essex-
   County) 	     Do.
 Kensington,  village of (Nas-
   sau County)	  June. 14.1974
 Lebanon, town  of (Madison
   County) 	  May 31,1974
 Lenox, town- of  (Madison
   County) 	  May 10,1974
 Leon, town of (Cattaraugus
   County)		  May 31,1974
 Limestone, village of (Cata-
   raugua County)	  May 17,1974
 Lincoln, town of (Madison
   County) 	  Apr. 12. 1974
 Lisle,   town  of   (Brooma
   County)	..	  Feb. IS, 1974
 Litchfleld, town of  (Herfcl-
   mer  County)	  Mar. 15, 1974
 Little Falls, town of (HerSi-
   mer  County)	  Apr. 5,1974
 Little Valley; village of (Oa-
   taraugus County)	  May 31,1974
 Livingston, town of (Colum-
   bia County)	  May 24.1974
 Lorraine,  town of (Jefferson
   County) 	  May 10, 1974
 Lyons,  village  of  (Wayne •
   County) 	  May 3,1874
 Manhetm, town of (Herkimer
   County)		„._  Mar. 8,1974
 Mansfleld, town  of (Catarau-
   gus County)	  May 31,1974
 MarUIa,   town   of   (Erie
  'County) _	  May 17,1974
 Mechanlcville, city of (Sara-
   toga County).,	  Apr. 5, 1074
 Medina,, village  o£ (Orleans
   County) 	  May 34, 1974
 Middleburg. villag»o£ (3ono-
   harie County)	;	  May 31, 1974
 Milton, town of  (Saratoga
   County) 	  Jnna 14, 1D74
 MtnlBink, town  of  (Orang*
   County) 	  Apr. 12,1974
 Mohawk, town of (Montgom-
   ery County)	„__  Feb. 15,1974
 Montezuma, town of (Cayuga  .
   County)		  May 31,1974
 Montgomery,    town   of
   (Orange County)	  Mar. 23,1074
 Moravia,  town  of   (Cayuga
   County) 	  Jfuno 14, 1974
 Moravia,  village of  (Cayuga
   County) 	  May S. 1074
 Morristown,  village  of  (St.
   Lawrence County)	  May 31,1974
 MorrisvUle-, village of (Madi-
   son County)	  Mar. 8.1074
 Mount Hope, town of (Orang*
   County) _„	_  May 24,1974
 Mantleoke, town of (Broom*
   County)	.-  Apr. 12,1974
 Napoll, town of  (Cataraugua
   County)      - -  •         June 14,1974
 Nassau, village of (Hensselaer
   County)	—'	S£ar.23,:974  '
                                FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 40, NO.  123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975
-------
  26750
                 NOTfCES
          Ne'.u Mexico—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Nellistou, village of  (Mont-
   gomery County)	  Feb. 15,1974
 New Berlin, village of (Che-
   nango County)	  May 31,1974
 New Leoanon,  town of (Co-
   lumbia County)	  Apr. 12,1974
 New  Scotland, township  of
   (Albany County)	  May 10,1974
 Newstead,  town  of   (Erie
   County)		  Apr. 12, 1974
 Nichols,  village  of  (Tioga
   County) 	  June 7,1974
 North  Syracuse,  Tillage  of
   (Onondaga  County)	     Do.
 Olive,   town  of    (Ulster
   County)  .,	     Do.
 Orchard Park, village of (Erie
   County)	     Do.
 Oswego,  town  of  (Oswego
   County)	  May 31,1974
 Otisco, town of  (Onondaga
   County)	,   ,_ _ i. i           Do.
 Otto, town  of (Cataraugu*
   County)	     Do.
 Owasco,  town  of  (Cayuga
   County)	      Do.
 Palatine  Bridge,  village  of
   (Montgomery County)	Feb. 15,1974
 Peeksklll. city of  (Westches-
   ter County)	  May 31,1974
 Paiham village of (Westches-
   tor County) —.	  May 17,1974
 Perrysburg, town  of (Cattar-
   augus  County)	   May 17, 1974
 Perry,  village  of  (Wyoming
   County)			 May 24, 1974
 Poland, village of (Herkliner
   County)	 Mar. 8, 1974
 Port Byron, village of (Cay-
 uga  County)	  May 3, 1974
 Putnam  Valley,   town  of
   (Putnam  County)	  Mar. 29,1974
 RicfcmondvUJe,   village   of
   (Schoharie County)	  May 3), 1274
 Rosendale,  town  of  (Ulster
  County) 	      Do.
 Bound Lake, village of (Sar-
  atoga County)	      Do.
 Bouses  Point,  village  of
   (Clinton County)	  June 14, 1974
 Eutland,  town of (Jefferson
  County) 	  June 7, 1974
 Saddle  Bock,   village   of
   (Nassau County)	  June 14, 1974
 Salem, village of  (Washing -
  ton County)	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Salisbury, town  of  (Herk-  -
  imer County)	  June 7, 1974
 Sandy  Creek, town of  (Os-
  wego County)	  May 24, 1974
Schaghtlcoke,   village    of
  (Rensselaer County)	  May 31,1974
 Schoharle, village of (Scho-
  harie County)	      Do.
Schuylerville,   village    of
  (Saratoga County)	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Scottsvllle, village of  (Mon-
  roe  County)	-  Mar. 8. 1974
 Sempronlus, town of (Cay-
  uga  County)	  May 31, 1974
Sennett,  town  of (Cayuga
  County) 	  June 14, 1974
 Sherburne, village of (Chen-
  ango County)	  May 31, 1974
Sidney, town of  (Delaware
  County)	,	  Apr. 12, 1974
Sidney, village of (Delaware
  County) 	  Feb. 8, 1974
Slnclalrvllle,    village    of
  (Crtautauqua County).__  May 10, 1974
Sloatoburg, village of (Beck-
  If.rtd coi-.ncy)	  Mar. 22, 1974
Siv.ijh  Dt^ton,  viUagw  c"
  (Cattaraugxu  County) —  May 31,1974
So-.ith Glens Falls, village  of
  (Saratoga County)	  Apr. 12, 1974
          New Mexico—Continued-
                                Date of
                             Identification
 South   Nyack,   villags   of
   (Bockland County)	Mar. 15, 1974
 SprLngville, village of (Erie
   County)			   May 17, 1974
 Stamford, village of (Dela-
   ware  County)	      Do.
 Summerhill, town of  (Cay-
   uga County)	   May 31,1974
 Tannersville,    village    of
   (Greene County)	   June 7, 1974
 Theresa, village of (Jefferson
   County)	   May 10, 1974
 Throop,  town  of  (Cayuga
   County) 	   Apr. 12, 1974
 Torrey,  town   of   (Yates
   County) 	   May 31, 1974
 Triangle, town  of  (Broome
   County) 	   Apr. 5, 1974
 Truxton, town of (Cortland
   County) 	,_     Do.
 Tuekahoe,  village of (West-
   Chester County)	   May 10, 1974
 Turin,   town   of   (Lewis
   County)  	   June 7, 1974
 Upper  Nyack,   village   of
   (Bockland County)	   Mar 15, 1974
 Victory,  village of (Saratoga   Apr. 5, 1974
   County)  	
 Wales,   town   of    (Erie   May 10, 1974
   County)  	
 Waterloo, village of  (Seneca   May 31, 1974
   County)  	
 Watertown, city of (Jefferson   Apr. 5, 1974
   County)  	
 Watertown, town of  (Jeffer-      Do.
   son County)	
 West Carthage,  village   of   May 10, 1974
   (Jefferson County)	
 Whitney  Point,  village   of   Feb. 22, 1974
   (Broome County)	
 Wilton,  town of  (Saratoga   June 14, 1974
   County)  	
 Wyoming, village of (Wyom-  May 17, 1974
   ing County)	
      Total	   169

              North Carolina

 Andrews, city of (Cherokee
   County)  	   Mar. 8, 1974
 Bladenboro, town of (Bladen
   County)  	  Nov. 30, 1974
 Burnsville,  city  of  (Yancey
  County)  	1  Mar. 8,1974
 Carrboro, village of (Orange
  County)  	  Feb. 22, 1974
 Chad bourn, town of (Colum-
  bus County)	  May 24, 1974
 China   Grove,   town   of
   (Rowan County)	  Jan, 9,  1974
 Columbia,  town  cf  (TyreU
  County)  	  Feb. 8,  1974
 Conetoe,   town  of  (Edge-
  combe  County)	  Jan. 9,  1974
 Dillsboro, city  of (Jackson.
  County)  	  Mar. 8,1974
 Elizabethtown,    town   of
   (Bladen County)	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Enfleld,  town  of  (Halifax
  County)  	  Nov. 30, 1973
Frankllnvijle, town of (Ran-
  dolph County)	  Feb. 22, 1974
 Gatesville,  town,  of  (Gates
  County)  	      Do.
JonesviUe, town  of (Yadkln
  County)  	  Mar. 1, 1974
Knlghtdale, town of (Wake
  County).  	  Apr. 12, 1974
Lake  Waccamaw,  town  of
   (Columbus County)	  Dec. 28, 1973
Lansing,   town   of   (Ashe
  Count?)  	  Feb. 22, 1974
Lm, ol'itfn.  el;y of  (Lin-
  cola County)!	  Apr. 5,  1974
Macclesfleld, town of (Edge-
  cornbe  County)	  Jan. 9,  1974
         North Carolina—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification,
 Newland,  town  of  (Avery
   County) 	  Juna 14, 1974
 Pinetops,  town  of  (Edge-
   combe  County)	  Jan. 9, 1974
 Robbinsville, town of (Gra-
   ham Country)	  June 14,1974
 Robersonville, town of (Mar-
   tin County)	  June 7, 1974
 Butherfordton.   town    of
   (Rutherford County)	  Mar. 1,1974
 Sparta,  city of  (Alleghany
   County) 	  Feb. 15, 1974
 Speed, town of (Edgecombe
   County) 	  Jan. 9,1974
JSpruce Pine, town of (Mit-
   chell County)	  June 14, 1974
 Sylva,   city  of   (Jackson
   County) 	  Mar. 8,1974
 Vanceboro, town of (Craven
   County)		  Mar. 1,1974
 Waynesville, city of (Hay-
   wood County)  	  Mai. 8,1974
 Whitakers,  town of  (Edge-
   comb  County)	  May 24,1974
      Total	  31

               North Dakota

 Belfield,    city   of   (Stark
   County) 	  May 24; 1974
 Bowman, city  of (Bowman
   County) 	  Mar. 29,1974
 Hatton,   city    of   (Trail
   County) 	  May 10,1974
 Lakota,   city  of   (Nelson
.  County)		  May 3,1974
 Leeds,   city   of  (Benson
   County) 	  Apr. 5,1974
 Maddock,  city of  (Benson
   County) 	,  Mar. 8,1974 &
                             Nov. 15, 1973
 New Rockford, city of (Eddy
   County) 	  Nov. 23, 1973
 Portland, - city  of  (Trail
   County)	  May 10, 1974
 Rugby,   city  of    (Pierce
   County) —,	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Turtle Lake, city of (McLean.
   County) 	     Do.
 Washburn, city of  (McLean
   County) 	     Do.
 Wilton, city of  f McLean and
   Burleigh Counties)	May 24, 1974
      Total _.	  12

                   Ohio
 Ada, city of (Hardtn County)   June 7,1974
 Addyston, village  of (Hamil-
   ton County)	  Mar. I,1974
 Alexandria, village of (Lick-
   ing County)	  May 3*1, 1974
 Alliance,   city  of   (Stark
   County) 	  June?, 1974
 Amsterdam, village of (Jef-
   ferson  County)	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Antwerp, village  of  (Paul-
   ding County)	  Mar. 29,'1974
 Apple  Creek,   village   of
   Wayne County)	     Do.-
 Arlington Heights, village of.
   (Hamilton County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
 Arlington, village of  (Han-
   cock County)	  May 17,1974
 Ashley, village  of (Delaware
   County) 	„„_  Jan. 23,1974
 Aurora,  city   of   (Portage
   County) 	  May 10,1974
Avon,   city   of   (Loraln
   County) 		_.   Apr. 12,1974
Balnbrldge, village of (Boss
   County)  	   Mar. 29,1974
 "BarnesTille, vi!l.i39 of (Bel-
   moot County)	..	.   June 7,1974
 Batavia, village of (Clermont
   County) ._	_	_.   Nov. 30, 1973
                                FIDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY,  JUNE 25,  1975
-------
                                                           NOTICES
                                                                              26751
             Ohio—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Bedford, city of (Cuyahoga
   County)  	  Feb. 8, 1974
 Be!lalre, city  of  (Beimont
   County)  	      Do.
 Berlin  Heights,  village  of
   (Erie County)	  Apr. 5,1974
 BetisvUle. village of  (Senecfc
   County)	  Apr. 12,1974
 B'.anehester, village of (Clin-
   ton County)	  Apr. 5, 1974
 Botktns, village ol  (Shelby
   County)  	  May 31,1974
 Breeksvllle,  city of  (Cuya-
  hoga County)	  Feb. 8,1974
 Brooklyn, city of (Cuyahoga
  County)  	  Mai. 22,1974
 Deaolson, village  of (Tus-
  gomery County)	  Feb. 15,1974
 Bryan,  city   of  (Williams
  County)  		_  June 7,1974
 Cadiz,  village  of  (Harrison
  County)  		'_	  May 31,1974
 Caldwell, village of  (Noble
  County)  	  June 7,197*
 Caledonia, village of (Marlon
  County)		  Apr. 5,1974
 Cambridge, city of (Guern-
  sey County)	^  May 31,1974
 Camden, village of  (Preble
  County)  		  May 10,1974
 Canaeld, village of (Mahon-
  ing County)	  May 17,1974
 C2.sta.lia., village  of   (Erie
  County) 	".	  Mar. 29,1974
 Centerburg, village of (Knox
  County) 		  May 17,1974
Chagrin  Falls, village   of
  (Cuyahoga County)	  Mar. 15,1974
Chardon. village of (Geauga
  County) 		  Jan. 9, 1974
Cheviot,  city  of (Hamilton
  County) 	  June 7,1974
Chris tlansburg,  village   of
  (Ctampalgn County)	  Feb. 1,1974
 Coal Grove, village of (Law-
  rence County)	  June 14,1974
Coaltcu, village of (Jackson
  County) 	  Feb. 1, 1974
Coldwater, village  of  (Mer-
  cer County).		  June 7, 1974
 Columbiana,  village of (Co-
  lutnbiana  County)	  May 3,1974
 Columbus Grove, village  of
   (Putnam County)	  Feb. 8, 1974
 Convoy, village of (Van Wert
  County)  	  May 31,1974
 Corning, village of  (Perry
  County)	  May 10,1974
 Coshocton,  city of (Coshoc-
  ton County)	  Jan. 23, 1974
 Covington, village of  (Miami
  County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Creston, village of (Wayne
  Co\mty)		  Feb. 1,1974
 Crooksville, village of (Perry
  Coxinty)  	.	      t>o.
 Cuyahoga Heights, village of
   (Cuyahoga County)	  Mar. 29,1974
 Cygnet,  village of  (Wood
  County)  „		  May 10.1974
 Delphos,  city  of   (Allen
  County)  	  May 17,1974
Dennison, village  of (Tus-
  carawas County)	  Mar. 15,1974
 Donnelsville,    village    of
   (Claris County)	  Feb. 1,1974
 East Liverpool, city of (Co-
  lumbiana  County)	  Jan. 16, 1974
 East Palestine, city of (Co-
   lurr.biana  County)	      Do.
 Eas: oparta. village of (Stark
   County)  	  Apr. 5. 1074
 E'.;','-,   v*...1.^  oj   (Alien
   County)  	  J.'^r 20, U74
 Empire, village of  (Jefferson
   Counts')  	  Mar 15,1974
             OM»—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
Euclid, city of  (Cuyahoga
  County) 	  Apr. 5,1974
Evendale,- village of (Hamil-
  ton  County)	  Mar. 1,1974
Fairlawn, city  of (Summit
  County)  	  Mar. 29, 1974
Fort   Jenninas,  village  of
  (Putnam County)—	  May. 31, 1974
Fort   Recovery,  village  of
  (Mercer County)	,	  June 7, 1974
Frankfort,  village of  (Boss
  County)  		  Apr. 12, 1974
-Frederlcfcstown,  village  of
  (Knox County)	  April 5, 1974
Gallon, city of  (Crawford
  County)  	  Mar. 15,1974
Garfield  Heights,  city  of
  (Cuyahoga County)."	  Apr. 15, 1974
Garretsville, village of (Port-
  age County)	  Apr. 12, 1974
Girard, city of  (Trumbull
  County)  	  Jan, 23, 1974
Gloria Glens Park, Village of
  (Medina County)	  Mar. 15, 1974
Glouster, village  of (Athens
 •County)		  May 17, 1974
Grand River, village of (Lake
  County)  	  Feb. 8, 1974
Green   Camp,    village   of
  (Marlon County),	  Nov. 16, 1973
Green   Springs,  village  of
  (Sandusky County)	  Mar. 1,  1974
Greenfield, village of (High-
 land County)	   Do.
Hamden, village  of (Vinton
  County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
Hambler, Village of  (Henry
  County)  	  Apr. 12, 1974
Harrison, village  of (Hamil-
  ton County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
Hebron, village  of  (Licking
  County)  	  May 3, 1974
Htcksvtlle.  village of  (Defi-
  ance County)	"	  May 17, 1974
Hillsboro,  city of (Highland
  County)  	   Do.
Ho'.gate, village  of  (Henry
  County)  	  May 3,  1974
Independence,    city     of
  (Cuyahoga County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
Jackson  Center,  village  of
  (Shelby  County).	-  May 31, 1974
Jacksonville,   village    of .
  (Athens County)	  May 17, 1974
Jackson,  city  of (Jackson
  County)  	   Do.
Jeffersonville, •   village    of
  (Fayette County)	   Do.
Jeromesville, village of (Ash-
  land County)	  May 3, 1974
Kalida, village  of (Putnam
  County)  	  Mar. 1,  1974
Kenton,   city  of  (Hardin
  County)	-	  Jan. 9, 1974
Killbuck, village  of (Holmes
  County)  	  May3, 1974
Lakemore,  village of (Sum-
  mit County)		  Feb. 8, 1974
Lancaster,   City  of  (Fair-
  field County)		  May 17, 1974
Leesburg,  village of (High-
  land County)		  Apr. 5, 1974
Leetoma, village of (Colum-
  biana County)	  May 3, 1974
Lincoln Heights, village  of
  (Hamilton County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
Lisbon, village  of  (Colum-
  biana County)	  Apr. 12, 1974
Lockland,  city   of  (Colum-
  biana County)	   Do.
Lodi,   village  of  (Medina
  County)  —		  Mar. 15, 1074
L,:<-»,:i.  cl-y  of  ' Hoc^n-.g
  Ccun-T)  '		—  May 31, 1974
London, City  of (Madison
  County)  	  May 10, 1974
             Ohio—Contained
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Loudonvllle, village of (Ash-
   land County)		  May 31, 1974
 Louisville,  city  of  (Stark
   County)  			  May 17, 1974
 Lowell TiHe,    village    of
   (Mahoning County)	  Apr. 5, 1974
 Lucas,  village  of  (Blchland
   County)  	    Do.
 Lynchburg, village of (High-
   land  County)	  Mar. 29i, 1974
 Madison,  Village  of  (Lake
   County)  	  May 10, 1974
 Magnolia, village of (Carroll
   County)  	  May 3, 1974
-Mantua,  village of  (Portage'
   County)  		  Feb. 6,1974
 Maple   Heights,   City   of
   (Cuyahoga County)	    Do.
 Marlemont, village of (Wash-
   ington  County)  -—	    Do.
 Maumee,  city  of  (Lucas
   County)  	    Do.
 McComb, village of (Hancock
   County)	May 10* 1974
 McConnelsvtlle,  Tillage  ol
   (Morgan County)	  May 17, 1974
 McDonald, village of (Trum-
   bull  County)	    Do.
 McGuSey, village of (Hardin
   County)  	  May 10, 1374
 Mechanicsburg,  village  of
   (Champaign County)	  Feb. 1,1374
 Meudon,  village of (Mercer
   County)  	  June 14,1974
 Milan,    village   of  (Erie
   County)  	  Apr. 12.1974
 Milbury,  village of  (Wood
   Coucty)  	  Mar. 1, 1974
 MillvUle, village of (Butlar
   County)  	  June ",. 1974
 Monroeville,    village-   of
   (Huron County)	  So». 2, 1973
 Monroe,  village  of (Butler
   County)  	  May 17. 1974
 Montpelier, village of .(Wil-
   liams County)	  May 31, ID"!
 Moraine, Village of  (Mont-
   gomery County)	  Mar-. 1, 1974
 Moreland Hills, village of
   •(Cuyahoga County)	  Feb. 8, 1S74
 Mount   Healthy,   city  of
   (Hamilton Courty)--,—  June 7, 1974
 Napoleon,  city  of  (Henry-
   County)  	  MaJ 31, 1974
 Nelsonville,    village    'of
   (Athens County)	  May 10, 1974
 New  Holland,  village  of
   (Pickaway County)—	  Apr. 5, 1974
 New Lexington, village of
   (Perry County)	  May 17, 1974
 New Matamoras,  village of
   (Washington County)	  Apr. 5, 1974
 New Miami, village of (But-
   ler County)	,	.-  Feb. 8, 1974
 New Philadelphia,  city of
   (Tuscarawas  County) _.'_-  Mar. 15, 1974
 Newtmrgh Heights, village of
   (Cuyahoga County)	    Do.
 Newcomerstown. village of
   (Tuscarawas  County)	  May 17, 1974
 Newton, village of (Hamilton
   County)  	,	  Feb. 1, 1974
 North   Bend,   Tillage   of
   (Hamilton County)	  Mar. 15. 1974
 North  Fairfteld,  village of
   (Huron County)	    Do
 North  Ridgevllle-,   city of
   (Lorntn County)	  June 7. 1974
 Norton,  city  a*  (Summit
   Coujsc?)  	  Mar. 15. ![»."•*
 Oak Harbor, village of  (Ot-
   tawa County)	  Mar. 1, 1974
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO.  123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25,  1975
-------
  26752

              Ohio—Continued
                                 Date of
                             Identification
  Oakwood Village,  village  of
    (Cuyalioga County)	  May 17, 1974
  Oakwood. village of  (Pauld-
    ir.i  County)	    Do.
  Oberz.  village  of  (Franklin
    County)  			  Feb. 15, 1974
  Ontario, village of  (Rlchland
   County)  	  Apr. 5, 1974
  Ottawa  Hills,   village   of
   (Lucas County)	  Nov. 9, 1973
 Payne, village of  (Pauldlng
   County) 	  May 3, 197-1
 Peninsula, village  of  (Sum-
   mit County)	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Perrysburg,  city  of  (Wood
   County) 	      Do.
 PiXeton,  village   of   (Pike
   County) ._.	  Nov. 23, 1974
 Pioneer, village  of  (Williams
   County) 		  May 31, 1974
 Plymouth, village of  (Huron
   County) 	  May 3, 1974
 Pomeroy, village  of  (Meigs
   County) 	  Feb. 15, 1974
 Racine,  village  of  (Metgs
   County) __•	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Reading, city of  (Hamilton,
   County) 	  Feb. 8, 1974
 Richmond Heights, city- of
   (Cuyahoga County)	  Mar 22, 1974
 Rlchwood, village of (Union
   County) 	  May 17, 1974
 Riverside, village of  (Mont-
   gomery County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
 Rock Creek, village of (Ash-
   tabula  County)	  Apr. 5. 1974
 Rockford, village of (Mercer
   County) 	...  Apr. 12, 1974
 Rogers, village of  (Colum-
   biana County)	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Rosevllle, city of  (Muskin-
   gum  County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
 Roasford,  city  of   (Wood
   County) 	  Mar. 1, 1974
 Russeils  Point,  village  of
   (Logan County)	.  Apr. 5, 1974
 Salem,  city of (Columbians
   County) 	  May 3,  1974
 Seven Hills, city of  (Cayu-
   hoga  County)	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Seven Mile, village of (Butler
   County) 	  June 14, 1974
 Seville,  village  of  (Medina
  County) 	  Mar. 15, 1974
 Shawnee  Hills,   village  of
   (Delaware  County)	  Feb. 8,  1974 .
 Shelby,  city  of  (Richland
  County) 	  Nov. 9,  1974
 Shreve,  village  of (Wayne
  County) 	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Smlthville, village or (Wayne
  County) 	  Apr. 5,  1974
Solon,  city  of   (Cuyahoga
  County) 	     Do.
St. Paris, village of (Cham-
  paign County)	   June 7, 1974
Sugar Creek, village of (Tus-
  carawas County)	   May 31, 1974
Syracuse,  village  of (Meigs
  County) 	   Apr. 5, 1974
Terrace   Park,  village  of
   (Hamilton County)	   Feb. 8, 1974
Toronto,  city  of  (Jefferson
  County) 		__   Jan. 16, 1974
Tuscarawas, village of (Tus-
  oarawaa Coxinty)	   Apr. 5, 1974
Upper Sandusky, city of (Wy-
  andot County)	   Jan. 9, 1974
Valley View, village of (Cuya-
  hoga  County)	  Jan. 23, 1974
Van Buren, village of  (Han-
  cock County)	  Mar. 22, 1974
Vandtha.  city of (T^ontgotn-
  ery County)-......	,	   June 7, 197-1
                 NOTICES

              Oft-to—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
  Versailles, village of  (Darke
   County)  _	  Apr. 5, 1974
  Wadsworth, city of (Medina
   County)  	  Mar. 1, 1974
  Waite Hill,  village of  (Lake
   County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
  Wakeman, village of (Huron
   County)  	  Nov. 9, 1973
  Warrensville Heights,  city of
   (Cuyahoga County)	  Mar. 15, 1974
 Washingtonville, village  of
   (Columbiana and Mahon-
   Ing  Counties)	  Nov. 9, 1973
 VVauseou, village of (Fulton
   County) 	  June 7, 1974
 Wellington,  village of (Lo-
   raln County)	  Jan. 9, 1974
 Weilston,  city  of  (Jackson
   County) 	  Fsb. 15, 1974
 West Lake, city of (Cuyahoga
   County) 	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Whitehouse,  village of (Lucas
   County) 		  Mar. 29, 1974
 Wllliams'ourg.  village  of
   (Clermont County)	      Do.
 Wlndham, village of (Portage
   County)	  Mar. 15, 1974
 Wincersville,  village of  (Jef-
   ferson County)	  May 31, 1974
 Woodlawn, village of  (Ham-
   ilton County)	   Feb. 1, 1974
 Woodsfleld, village of (Mon-
   roe  County)	   June 7, 1974
 Woodville,  village  of  (San-
   dusky County)	   Mar. 15, 1974

      Total  		   202

                Oklahoma

 Anadarko,  city of  (Caddo
  County)		   Feb. 15, 1974
 Barnsdale, city  of  (Osage
  County)  	   Dec. 17, 1973
 Singer,  town  of   (Caddo
  County)  	   June 7, 1974
 Boley,  town  of (Okfuskee
  County)  		   Apr. 12, 1974
 Boswell, town  of  (Choctaw
  County)  	   Mar. 15, 1974
 Carnegie,  town of  (Caddo
  County)  _„'	   Dec. 7,  1973
 Chelsea,  city  -of   (Rogers
  County)  	   Dec. 28, 1973
 Crescent,  city  of  (Logan
  County)  		   May 10, 1974
 Dewey, city of (Washington
  County)  	   May 31, 1974
 Fairfax,  town  of  (Osage
  County)		   Dec. 28, 1973
 Fort Supply,  town of (Wood-
  ward County)	   May 24, 1974
 Guthrie,  city  of   (Logan
  County)  	   Dec. 28, 1973
 Haskell, town of (Muskogee
  County)  	   Apr. 12, 1974
 Healdton,   city  of   (Carter
  County)  	,	   Dec. 28, 1973
 Henryetta, city of (Okmulgee
  County) 	   Jan. 23, 1974
 Hobart,  city   of   (Klowa
  County)  	   Dec. 7, 1973
Hominy,  city   of   (Osage
  County) 	   Dec. 28, 1973
 Hulbert, town of (Cherokee
  County) 		—   Apr. 12, 1974
 Idabel, city  of  (McCurtain
  County) 	   Jan. 23, 1974
Inola,   city    of   (Rogers
  County) 	.   May 10, 1974
 Douawa, city of (Seniinole
  County) _—	-	   Apr. 5, 1974
Kreba   city  of  (Pittsburg
  County) 	   Dec. 28, 1973
Lona  *,Voir, town of  (Kiowa
  County) 	   May 3, 197i
           Oklahoma—Continued
                                Date of
                             Identification
 Madlll,  city  of  (Marshall
   County)  	  Nov. 23, 1973
 Marlow,  city  of  (Stephens
   County)  	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Newcastle, town of (McLain
   County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Pryor,   city   of   (Mayes
   County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974.
 Roff,   city   of   (Pontotoc
                             Mar. 22, 1974
 Selling,   city  of   (Dewey
   County)	  May 24, 1974
 Shattuck,  town   of  (Ellis
   County) 	^	      Do.
 Thomas,  city  of  (Custer
   County) 	,__  Apr. 5,1974
 Tishomingo, city  of  (John-
   ston County)	  Jan. 16,1974
 Tonkawa,   city  of   (Kay
   County) 	  Nov. 23,1973
 Vian,  town  of  (Sequoyah
   County) 	1	  Mays, 19ri4
 Weleetka, city of (Okfuskee
   County) 	  June 14,1974
      Total _.		  35

                  Oregon -

 Aumsville, city of  (Carion
   County) 	  May 10,1974
 Brokings,  city   of  (Curry
   County) 	  May 31,1974
 Canby,  city  of   (Clackamas
   County) 	,.	  Nov. 16,1973
 Chiloquin, town of (Klamath
   County) 	  Nov. 30,1974
 Drain,  city  of   (Douglas
   County) 	,  Apr. 5,1974
 Falls City,   city  of  (Polic
   County)		_.	  May 10,1974
 Huntingdon, city of  (Baker
   County) 	  Nov. 30,1973
 Powers,   city   of   (Coos   s
   County) 	  Nov. 23, 1973
 Rainier,  city  of (Columbia
   County) 	,  May 24,1974
 Riddle,   city  of   (Douglas
   County) 	  June 7,1974
 Sisters,  city of  (Deschutes
   County) 	  Dec. 7, 1973
 Turner,  city  of  (Marion
   County) 	  Jan. 16,1974
 Weston,  city  of  (Umatilla
   County)  	   May 17,1974
 Yamhill,  city of  (Yamhiil
   County) 	  Nov. 30,1973
 Yoncalla,  city of  (Douglas
   County)  	   Apr. 5,1974
      Total  	,   15

              Pennsylvania
 Alburtis, borough of (Lehigh
  County) 	   Jan. 16,1974
 Aleppo,  township  of  (Alle-
  gheny  County)	   May 10,1974
 Auburn, borough of (Schuyl-
  kill County)	   Jan. 23,1974
 Austin,  borough of (Potter
  County) 	   May 17,1974
 Avalou,  borough  of  (Alle-
   gheny County)	   Feb. 1,1974
Aronmore, borough of (West-
  moreland  County)	'_      Do.
Bally,  borough   of (Berks
  County) 	   June 7,1974
Beaver,  borough of (Beaver
  County) 		   Mar. 15, 1974
Bell Acres, borough  of (Alle-
  gheny County)	   June 7,1974
Bellevue, borough of  (Alle-
  gheny County)	  Dec. 28,1973
Ben Avon, borough of (Alle-
  gheny County)	      Do.
Bethel, township of (Arm-
  strong  County)	  Afay 31,19-74
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL.  40,  NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25,  1975
-------
                                                        NOTICES
                                                                             26753
...-ettstown.
                              Date of
                           Identification
               borough of
          County)	  Jan. IS, 1974
             borough   of
        , County)	  Dec. 28,1973
             township   of
            County)	  May 19,1974
              borough  of
              County)	  Jan. 23,1974
         City,  borough  of
 ""simerset County)	  June 7,1974
 rusvick, borough of (Alle-
.  Veny  County)	_  Feb. 1,1974
 r-irlion, city of (Allegheny
   «unty)		  Jan. 16,1974
 comport, borough of (Clear-
   fleld County)	  May 3,1974
 ait-son,  borough  of (Fay-
   ttte  County)--	  Dec. 28,19.73
 But Pittsburgh, borough of
   (Allegheny County)	  Mar. 29,1974
 But Rochester,  borough of
   (Beaver County)-	  Feb. 1,1974
 Vwidergrift.   borough   of
   (Westmoreland  County).  Apr.5,1974
Economy, borough of (Bea-
  ver County)	      Do.
Elzabeth, borough of (Alle-
  gheny  County)	  Jan. 9,1974
Pairfeiid, township of (Craw-
  ford  County)	  May 31,1974
Fr.yecte  City,  borough  of
  (Fayette County)	  Feb. 22,1974
Garrett, borough of  (Som-
  erset County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Grampian,   borough   of
  (Clearfleld County)	      Do.
Houtzdale,   borough   of
  (Clearfleld County)	  May 17,1974
Irvona, borough of  (Clear-
  field  County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Lansford, borough of (Car-
  bon  County)	  June 7,1974
Liberty, borough  of  (Alle-
  gheny  County)	  Dec. 28,1973
Ligonier, borough of (Wash-
  ington  County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Milford, borough  of (Pike
  County) 	  Apr. 5,1974
Millerstown,   borough   of
  (Perry  County)	  Jan. 16,1974
Milllietm, borough of (Centre
  Counly)	•	  May 10,1974
Nazarath,    borough   of
  (Northampton County)—  Jan. 9,1974
New Berlin, borouga of (Un-
  ion County)	  Feb. 22,1974
North Buffalo, township of
  (Armstrong County)	  Apr. 5,1974
Oakdale,  borough  of (Alle.- '
  gheny County)	  Dec. 7,1973
Patton, borough of (Cambria
  County)	  Feb. 1,1974
Polk, borough  of  (Veuango
  County)	  Apr. 5.1974
fiousevllle, borough, of (Ve-
  nango  County)	-—  Jan. 23,1974
Bandy  Lake,  borough  of.
  (Mercer County)	  Jan. 15,1974
Saenango,   township   of
  (Mercer County)	  May 17,1974
Shipping Port,  borough, ot
  (Beaver County)	  Feb. 1,1974
Smithton, borough of (West-
  moreland County)	  May 31,1974
South  Coatesvllle,  borough
  of(?>.                         Do.
South  Fork,  borough  of
  (Cambria County)	.      Do.
Southwest Greensburg, bor-
  ough  of  (Westmoreland
  County; 		  Feb. 1,1974
SpTsrig:s». bo.-r/ugb or (Cam-
• brli  County)	_       Z>o.
         Pennsylvania—Continued
                               Date of
                            Identification
Spring, township of (Craw-
  ford County)	  May 31,197*
Sugar  Grove,  borough  of
  (Warren County)—	      Do.
Sugarcreek, borough of (Ve-
  nango County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Summerhill,   borough   of
  (Cambria  County)	  Dec. 28, 1973
Tatamy, borough of (North-
  ampton County)	  Apr. 12,1974
Thompsontown,  borough ot
  (Juniata County)	      Do.
Topton, borough of (Berks
  County) 	  May 31,1974
Troy, borough of (Bradfordf .
  County) 		  May 10,  1974
Turtle  Creek,  borough  ot
  (Allegheny  County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
Upper  Nazareth township of
  (Northampton  County) _  Dec. 27,  1971
Venango, township of (Craw-
  ford  County)	.  May 31,  1974
Versailles, borough  of  (Al-
  legheny County)	  Jan. 9, 1974
Waterford, borough of  (Erie
  County) 	  May 10,  1974
Wayne, Township of (Craw-
  ford  County)	  May 31,  1974
Westover, borough of (Clear-
  field County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
Womelsdorf,   borough   of
  (Berks County)	  May 24, 1974
Wyalusing,    borough    of
  (Bradford County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
York  Haven,  borough  of
  (York  County)	  Jan. 23, 1974
      Total	  72

              Rhode Island
Hopkinton, town of (Wash-
  ington County)	  May 31, 1974
Richmond, town of (Wash-
  ington County)	    Do.
      Total	  2

              South Carolina

Abbeville, city of (Abbeville
  County) 		,  May 31,  1974
Andrews,  town of  (George-
  town County)	  May 24,  1974
Belton, town  of (Anderson
  County) 	,	    Do.
Blackville, town  of (Barn-
  well  County)	.	  June  7,  1974
BluEton, town of (Beaufort
  County) 	  May 17,  1974
Bowman,  town of (Orange-
  burg County)	May 31,  1974
Branchville, town of
  (Orangeburg County)	  June  7,  1974
Clover,  town   of   (YorK
  County)  	  May 24;  1974
Dillon,  town   of   (Dillon
  County)  	  May 17.  1974
Eastover, town of (Richland
  County)  	  May._31.  1974
Edgefield, town of (Edgefleld
  County)  		  May 24,  1974
Fairfax, town of (Allendale
  County)  	  May 31,  1974
Harteyrtlle,  town of  (Dor-
  chester County)	  May 24.  1974
Hemingway, town  of  (Wil-
  liamsburg  County)	—  June 7, 1974
Holly Hin, town of  (Orange-
  burg County)		    Do.
Irmo,  town  of  (Lexington
  County) 	,	  May 17,  1974
Iva,  town   of  (Anderson
  County) 	  May 31,  1974
Jackson,  town   of (Aikan
  CmmtyV 	  May 17,  1974
Laka View,  town of Dillon.
  County) 	,—  M%y 24,  1974
        South Carolina,—Continued
                               Date of
                            Identification
Lane, town ot (WUliamsburg-
  County)  	  May 17.  1974
McCormick, city of (MeOor-
  mlck  County)	.  June 7,  1974
Moncks  Corner,   town  of
  (Berkeley County)	  May 24,  1974
Olanta, town of  (Florence
  County)  	  May 24,  1974
Pampllco, town of (Florence
  County)  	-	  May 10,  1974
Ridgeville,  town  of  (Dor-
  chester County)	  May 31,  1974
Scranton, town of (Florence
  County)  	  May 24,  1974
Sellers,   town  of  (Marlon
  County)  _		  June 7, 1974
Seneca,  town  of  (Oconee
  County)  	!	  June 14, 1974
South Congaree,  town  of
  (Lexington County)	  May 17,  1974
Tlmmonsville, town of (Flor-
  ence County)	  May 24,  1974
Warrenville, town of (Alken
  County)  	  June 14, 1974
Willlamston. town  of  (An-
  derson County}	  May 31,  1974
      Total 	  32
              South. Dakota
Colome,  city   of  (Tripp
  County)  	  May 10,  1974
Planklnton, city of (Aurora
  County)  	*	  June 7,  1974
      Total	  2
                Tennessee

Bell Buckle,  town of (Bed-
  ford County)	«...  June 14. 1974
Bristol,  city  of  (Sullivan
  County)  -		  Mar. 8, 1974
Calhoun, city  of  (McMlnn
  County)  	    Do.
Chapel Hill,  town of (Mar-
  shall  County)	  June 14, 1974
Charleston, city of (Bradley
  County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
Dayton,  city   of   (Rhea
  County)  	  Mar. 1, 1974
Dunlap, city of  (Sequatchie
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
Dyer,  town   of   (Gibson
  County)  	  May 31, 1974
Englewood, city of (McMinn
  County)  	  May 17, 1974
Estill Springs, city of (Frank-
  lin County)	  Feb. 1. 1974
Graysville,  -city  of  (Rhea
  County)  	  Mar. 8, 1974
Iron City, city of (Lawrence
  County)  	  June 14, -1974
Kimball, town  of  (Marlon.
  County)  	    Do.
Kingston,  city  of  (Boane
  County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
Lewisburg,  city of (Marshall
  County)  	  Mar. I, 1974
Lynnville.  city  of  (Giles
  County)  	  June 14, 1974
Milan,  town,  of  (Gibson
  County)  	  May 24,  1974
Richard City, city of (Marlon
  County)  	,	  Feb. I. 1974
Ridgetop, ctty of (Robertson
  County)  	  June 7, 1974
Rogersvllle, city of (Hawkins
  County)	  Feb. 15, 1974
Rutherford, town of Gibson
  County)  	  June 7, 1874
Salttllo,  town  of  (Hardln
  CountvV	-  June 14.  1974
Sneedville,  city  ot (Hancock
  County)  	  Fsb. 1, 137+
                              FEDeRAl REGISTER, VOt. 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, T775
-------
 26754
NOTICES
           Tennessee—Continued
                              Identification
                                 Date of
 Sonerville, town of (Fayette
   County)  	   May 17, 1974
 Spring Hill,  city  of  (Maury
   County)  	      Do.
 Surgoinsviile, city of (Haw-
   kins County)	      0o.
 Tollico Plains, city of (Mon-
   roe  County)	   Mar. 8, 1974
 Tracy City, city of (Grundy
   County) 	   May 10, 1974
 Trent on, town of  (Gibson
   County) 	   May3, 1074
 Wartrace, town of (Bedford
   County) 	   June 14, 1974
 WhitweU.  city  of  (Marion
   County) 	   Feb. 15, 1974
      Total  	   31

                   Texas

 Alamo,  city  of   (Hidalgo
   County) 	   Jan. 23, 1974
 Albany, city  of  (Shackelford
   County).	  May3, 1974
 Anton,   city   of   (Hockley
   County) 	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Balch Springs, city of  (Dal-
   las County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
 Bandera,  city of   (Handera
   County) 	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Blanco,   city   of   (Blanco
   County) 	  May 3, 1974
 Blue Mound, city of (Tar-
   rant County)	  Dec. 17, 1973
 Booker,  city  of  (Ochiltree
   and Lipscomb Counties)	May 24, 1974
 Bowie,  city  of  (Montague
   County)  	1	  May 3,  1974
 Boyd,    city   of    (Wise
   County)  	*	  Dec. 28,  1973
 Briar Oaks, city of (Johnson
   County)  	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Bronte.   town  of   (Coke
   County)  	      Do.
 Cactus,   city   of   (Moore
   County)  	  June 14, 1974
 Canton,  city of (Van Zandt
  County)  	  May 10, 1974
 Canutillo, city  of  (El  Paso
  County)  	  Jan. 9, 1974
 Carrizo  Springs,   city  of
   (Dimmlt County)	  May 3. 1974
 Center,   City   of   (Shelby
  County)  	'	  Mar. 1, 1974
 Cisco,   city   of  (Eastland
  County)  	  MayS, 1974
 Clarksville, city of (Bed River
  County)  	  Feb. 15, 1974
 Cockrell Hill, city of  (Dallas
  County)  	  Dec. 7, 1973
 Combes,  town of  (Cameron
  County)  	  May 10,  1974
Cooper,   city   of   (Delta
  County)  	  Jan. 9,  1974
 Copperas   Core,   city   of
   (Coryell County)	  Apr. 5, 1974
 Corrigan,   city   of   (Polk
  County)  	  May 24,  1974
Cotulla,  city  of   (LaSalle
  County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
Crandall, city of (Kaufman
  County)  	 Mar. 8, 1974
 De Leon, city of (Comanche .
   County)  		—  Apr, 5, 1974
 De Kalb, town of   (Bowie
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
Dimmlt,   city   ol   (Castro
  County)  	  May 10, 1974
 Donna,   city  of   (Hidalgo
  County)  	 Feb. 1, 1974
 Eagle Lake,  city  of  (Colo-
  rado County)	.	May 10, 1974
Early,   cir,y    of    (Browu
  Cn'inr.yl  	 May 17, 1974
 Ediou.-h,  c-.ty  of   (Hidalgo
  County)  	 May 10, 1974
 Ed *ewroou, city of (Van Zandt
   County)  	 Juno 14, 1974
             Teros—Continued
                             ldenttf.ca.ticn
                                Date of
 El Campo, city of (Wharton
   County)  	  June 7, 1974
 Everman,  city of  (Tarraat
   County)  	  Dec. 17,  1973
 Floydada,   city  of  (Floyd
   County)  	  May 31,  1974
 Friona,  city  of  (Farmer
   County)  	  April 12, 1974
 Gonzales. city  of (Gonzales
   County)  	  May 24,  1974
 Grand Saline,  city of  (Van
   Zandt County)	  May 10,  197-i
 Hale Center,  city  of  (Hale
   County)  	"	     Do.
 Haskell,   city  of  (Haskell
   County)		  May 17, 1974
 Hewitt, city of  (McLennan
   County)   	  Jan. 23, 1974
 Iowa Par's,  city of  (Wichita
   County)   	  Apr. 5, 1974
 Jasper,  city  of   (Ja&per
   County)   	•_	  Mar. 29, 1974
 Kennedale,  city of  (Tarrant
   County)   		.	  Feb. 1, 1974
 Kermlt,  city  of  (Winkler
   County)  	  May 24, 1974
 Kilgore, city of (Gregg and
   Rusk Counties)	     Do.
 Kingsville, city of  (Kleberg
   County)   	  Feb. 26, 1971 •
 Kleberg County, Unincorpo-
   rated Area	  Aug. 17, 1971
 La Grange,  city of  (Fayette
   County)  	  Mar. 22, 1974
 La Joya,  city  of  (Hidalgo
   County)  	  Jan. 23, 1974
 La Villa,  city  of  (Hidalgo
   County)  —',	     Do.
 Lacoste,  city  of  (Medina
   County)  	  Jan. 9, 1974
 Lefors,   city   of     (Gray
   County)  	  May 10, 1974
 Lindale,   city  of   (Smith
  County)  	  Mar. 22, 1974
 Llano,   city   of   (Llano
   County)  	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Lorenzo,   city  of  (Crosby
  County)  	  April 12, 1974
 Lyford,  city   of   (Willacy
  County)  	  May 17, 1974
 MadisonVille, city of (Madi-
  son County)	     Do.
Marion, city of (Guadalupe
  County)  	  Jan. 9, 1974
 Mason,   city   of   (Mason
  County)  —	_	—  May 10, 1974
McLean,   city   of   Gray
  County)  	  May 17, 1974
 Mexia, city  of   (Limestone
  County)  	  Mar. 15, 1974
 Miami,  city  of   (Roberts
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
Mineola,   city   of   (Wood
  County)		  May 3, 1974
Moulton,  town of  (Lavaca
  County)  	1	  Apr. 5,1974
Mount Pleasant, city of (Ti-
  tus County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
Munday,   city   of   (Knox
  County)  	   May 17, 1974
Murphy,   city  of   (Collin
  County)  	   Dec. 7, 1973
Newton,  city  of   (Newton
  County)  	   June 7, 1974
 Nocona, city of  (Montague
  County) 	   May 10, 1974
 Nolanville,  city  of   (Bell
  County) 	   May 24, 1974
 Oakwood  Grove,   city  of
   (Leon  County)	    Do.
 ranje Orove, city  of (Jim
  Wei's Count-/)	   May 3, 1974
 "•ona,  c'5y  of   (F-ocSett
  County) 	   Dec. 7, 1974
Palestine,  city of  (Anderson
  County)		   May 31, 1974
             Texas — Continued
                             Identification
                                Date of
 Pampa,   city   of    (Gray
   County) ----------------  Hay 10, 1974
 Petersburg,  city  of  (Hale
   County) . ...... ---------  April 12, 197-1
 Pmehurst, city of  (Orange
   Cour.ty) ----------- , ----  July 2, 1974
 Pittoburg, city  of   (Camp
   County) ----------------  Jan. 23, 197-1
 Post,   city    of    (Garz*
   County> ________________  April 1C, 1374
 Poteet,  city  of  (Atsacosa
   County) ---------- , ______  Jan. 23, 137-t
 Poth,   city    of   (WiUon
   County) ... ....... ______  May 24, 1974
 Quinlan,   city   of   (Hunt
   County) ----------------  April 12, 1974
 Ranger,  city  of  (Eastland
   Cour.ty) ----------------  Ma/  17, 1074
 Rankia,   city   of   (Upton
   Coun-y) ----------------  May 10, 1974
Roby. city of ( Fisher County )  May 17. 1974
 Rotaa,   city   of   (Fisher
   County) ....... __ ..... __  April 12, 1974
 Toxton,   city  of  (Laaoar
   County) __.i.__, ________  May3,  1974
 Sachse,   city  of   (Dallas
   County) ________________  Pfib.  22, 1974
 Saginaw,  city  of (Tarrant
   County) ________________  Mar. 8, 1374
Saa Juan, city of (Hidalgo
  County) ________________  Mar. 22, 1974
 Santa Rosa, city of (Cameron
   County) -_ _______________  May 17. 1974 .
 Seagoville, city  of  (Dallas
   Coulity) ________________  Feb.  1,  1374
Sealy,   city   of   (Austin
   County) ________________  Dec  17, 1973
 Seniinole,  city  of  (Gaiues
   County) ______ ; __________  May  24. 1974
 Slaton, city  of  (LubbooK
   County) ________________  Mar. 22, IS74
 Somerville, city of (Burlesoa
   County) ________________  May  3,  1974
 Spearman, city of (Hansford
   County) ________________  May  17. 1974
 Stanton,  city  of   (Martin
   County) ________________  J&n.  16, 197-i
Sterling Clt, town of (Sterl-
  ing County) ________ , ____  May  24, 1974
Stinnett,  city of  (Hutcain-
  son County) _____________  Miy  31, 1974
Stockdale, city  o*  (Wilson
  County) ________________    Do.
Sundown,  city of {Hockley
  County) ________________  April 12, 1974
Tahoka,   city   of   (Lynn
  .County) ..... ___________  May  10, 1974
Troup,   city   of   (Smith
  County) ________ ...... ..  Aprti'12, 1974 -
Valley Mills, city of  (Bosque
  county) _____ ......... „  May 3. 1974
Van Horn, town of (Culbert-
  son County) _____________  Ma?  10, 1974
Vernon, city of  (Wilbarger
  County) ________________  May  IT, 1974
Wallis,   city   of   (Austin
  County) _______________   May 24, 1974
Wheeler,  city of (Wheeler
  County)  _____________ _ __   Mda'.  25, 1374
Whltehouse, city of  (Smith
  County)  ..... ___________ '
Wills  Point,  city of  (Van
  Zandt  County) __________     Do-
Winters,   city  of  (Runnels
  County)  .. ..............   DM. 17, 1973
Yoakum,  city  of   (Lavaca
  County)  ________________   May 10, 1974
      Total ____ ........ ___       116

                  Vtah

Beaver,  city   of   (Eeav«r
  County)  _________________   June 11, JS"4
£'.irs-ca,   city   of   (Juab
  County)  ----------------   June 7, lii'Ti
Grantsville, city of  (Tooele
  County)  ..... . ..........   May 31, 19.'*
                                                             . 1974
                                 FEOE3AI REGISTER, VOL.  40,  NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25,  1975
-------
                                                          NOTICES
                                                                             26755
            Utah—Continued
                               Date of
                            Identification
 ;:  unison, city  of  (Einery
 •"r.ur-cy)  		  May 24, 1974
 e-.ligeviU?, city  of  (Emery
  "iv.Tiity)  	  June 7, 1974
 •,v"o  Bountiful,  city  of
   (L>avis County)	  Dec. 28, 1913
 \v ..-ird, city of (Box Elder
  c'vantT)  	,	  June 7, 1974
      Total 	  7
                 Vermont

 Berkshire, town of (Franklin '
  County)  	  May 31, 1974
 Berlin, town of (Washington
  County)		  Feb. 15, 1974
 Canaan,  cown  of (Lamoiile
  County)  	  May 31, 1974
 Clarendon, town  of  (Ruth-
  la-id County)	    Do,
 Enosburg  Falls,  Tillage of
  (Franklin County)	  Apr. 5,1974
 Fairfax, town  of (Franklin
  County)  	  May 17, 1974
 Highgate, town of (Franklin,
  County)  	  May 31, 1974
 Jericho, town of (Chittenden
  County)  	  June 14, 1974
 Miiton,  village  of (Chitten-
  den County)	  May 3, 1974
 More town,  town of  (Wash-
  ington County)	  May 31, 1974
 Nortiifield,  town  of  (Wash-
  ington  County)	    Do.
 Readsboro,  town of  (Ben-
  nington  County)	    Do.
Sheldon, town  of (Franklin
  County)  	  Apr. 12, 1974
Sundsrland, town of  (Ben-
  nington  County)	  Feb. 1, 1974
Swanton, village of  (Frauk-
  lln County)	  Mar. 22, 1974
Turnbridge, town of (Orange
  County)  	  May 31, 1974
V/iIHston, town of (Chitten-
  den County)	  "Mar. 15, 1974
      Total 	  17

                 Virginia

Duffield,  town  of  (Seott
  County)  	  Mar. 8, 1974
Dungaanon, town of (Scotc
  County)  	  Mar. 22, 1974
Jonesvllle,   town  of   (Lee
  County)  	  June 14, 1974
Mount  Jackson,  town of
  (Shenandoah County)	  May 31, 1974
Roykins, town of  (South-
  hampton County)—	„    Do,
St.  Charles, town of   (Lee
  County)  	  May 17, 1974
      Total _.		  6
               Washington

Benton  City, town of (Ben-
  ton County)	  Jan. 9, 1974
Bingen, town  of (Kllckitat
  County)  	  June 7, 1974
Carnation,  town  of  (King
  County)		  May 31, 1974
CoV-ille.  city   of  (Stevens
  C-nuity)  	  Dec. 28, 1973
Dee-- Park,  city of (Spokane
  County)  		_	  Apr. 5, 1974
El.Tia, town of (Grays Harbor
  County)  	  June 7, 1974
Ephrata,  city  of   (Grant
  County)  	..	  May 31, 1974
Medical Lake, town of (Spo-
  kane County)	  June 7, 1974
Paloaae,  city  of  (Whitman
  C'n-.iaty)  	  Ma" 24. 1574
P:.-. An-«:es, cr.j ^r (ClaUam
  County)  	1		  May ui.. W-i
Prosser,  town  of  (Benton
  County)		  Jan 23, 1974
         Washington—Continued
                               Date of
                            Identification
Republic, town  of  (F*rry
  County)  	  June 7, 197*
Rosalia,  town of (Whitman
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
Sheltcn,   city  of   (Mason
  County)  		-  June 14, 1974
St. John, town of (Whitman
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
      Total  	  15

              West  Virginia

Ana wait, town of (McDowell
  County)  	  May 31, 1974
Beckley,  city  of  (Raleigh
  County)  	  June 7, 1974
Belle,  town  of  (Kanawha
  County)  		  Mar. 1, 1974
Bethany, town  of   (Brooke
  County)  		-  Feb. 8, 197*
Buffalo,  town  of  (Putnam
  County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
Cedar Grove, town of (Kana-
  wha County)	  Mar. 8, 1974
Franklin, town of (Pendleton
  County)" 	  May 31, 1974
Hambleton, town of (Tucker
  County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
Hurricane, village of (Put-
  nam County)	  Apr. 5, 1975
Montgomery, city of (Fayette
  and Kanawha Counties)..  May 24, 1974
Pine Grove, town of (Wetzel
  County)  		      Do.
Trldelphia, town of (Ohio
  County)  	.	  Feb. 8, 1974
Valley Grove, town  of (Ohio
  County)  	  Feb. 1, 1974
War,  town   of  (McDowell
  County)	  May 31, 1974
West  Hamlin, town  of (Lin-
  coln County)	      Do.

      Total  	  16

                Wisconsin
Arcadia,  city of  (Trempea-
  leau-County)	  Nov. 30, 1973
Athens, village of (Marathon
  County)	  May 31, 1974
Augusta,  village of  (Eau
  Claire County)	  May 10, 1974
Baldwin, village of (St. Croix
  County)  	.	      Do.
Barneveld, village of (Iowa
  County)  	  May 17, 1974
Barron,   city  of   (Barron
  County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
Belgium, village of (Ozauke«
  County) 	  June 7, 1974
Bell Center, village of (Craw-
  ford County)	  Jan. 9, 1974
Belleville, village of  (Dane
  and Green  Counties)	      Do.
Belmorit, village  of  (Lafay-
  ette County)	  May 17, 1974
Black Earth, village of (Dane
  County) 	  Dec. 17, 1973
Boscobel,  city   of   (Grant
  County) 	      Do.
Bowler, village of (Shawano
  County) 	  Nov. 30, 1973
Brown town, village of (Green
  County) 	  Jan. 9, 1974
Cambridge, village o! (Dane
  County) 	  Dec. 17, 1973
Cameron, village of (Barron
  County) 			  Dec. 28, 1973
Cascade,  village of (Sheboy-
  gan County)	  May 3, 1974
Clisoeburg, village of (Ver-
  Jion County)	  Dec. 28. 1973
Cu:n'oei!and, city of (Barren
  Coin;/) 	  M.iy 31, lOTi
Dela-leid, city of  (Waukesha
  County) _	  June 7, 1974
          "Wisconsin—Continued
                                Date o I
                             Identification
Doylestown, village, of  (Co-
  lumbia  County)	May 17. 1974
Eagle River, city of (VUaa
  County) 	   Deo. 28, 1973
East Troy, village of (Wai-
  worth County)	   May 24, 1974
Edgerton,  city  of  (Hock
  County) 	   Dee. 17, 1973
Elroy, city of (Juneau Coun-
  ty) 			-._   June 7. 1974
Endeavor,  village, of (Mar-
  quette County)	   Dec. 17, 1973
Ettrick, village of (Trempea-
  leau County)	   NOT. 30, 1573
Fairchild,  village  of   (Eau
  Claira County) _	   Ma? 31, 1974
Fall Creek, village of  (Eau
  Claire County).		   May 24, 1974
Forestville, village  of  (Door
  County) 	   Nov. 30, 1973
Fortville,  village  of (Rook
  County) 	   May 31, 1974
Fox Lake,  city  of (Dodge
  County) 		   May 24, 1974
Francis  Creek,  village  of
  (Manitowoc  County)	   May 17, 1974
Galesville, city of (Trempea-
  leau County)	   Nov. 30, 1973
Gillett,   city  of   (Oconto
  County) 	   April 12, 1971
Gratlot, village of (Lafayette
  County) 	,	   Jan. 16, 1974
Hammond,  village  of   (St.
  Crois County)	   May 10, 1974
Hartland, village of (Wauke-
  sha County)	   Nov. 30, 1973
Holeman,   villago  of   (La
  Crosse County)	   May 17, 1974
Horicon,  city  of  (Dodge
  County) 	   Nov. 30, 1973
Howard, village of  (Brown
  County) 	   Dec. 28, 1973
Hustlsford, village of (Dodge
  County) 	   Nov. 30, 1973
lola,  village  of  (Waupaca
  County) 	   June 7, 1974
Johnson  Creek,  village  of
  (Jefferson County)	   Jan. 9,  1974
Kekoskee, village of (Dodge
  County) 			   Jan. 23, 1974
Kewaskum, vUTage of (Wash-
  ington County)	   Dec. 28, 1S73
Kiel,  city  of  (Maaitowoc
  County) 	,   Feb. 8,  1974
[jakd Hills, city of (Jefferson
  County) 	   May 17, 1974
Lannon, village of  (Wauke-
  sha County)	   Dec. 28, 1973
Lena,  village  of  (Oconto
  County)	   May 24, 1974
Livingston, village of (Grant
  County) __.		   May 17, 1974
Lone Bock, village of (Rich-
  land County)	.	      Do.
Lowell,  village of  (Dodge
  County) 	      Do.
Luxemburg, village of  (Ke-
  •waunee County)	   May 10, 1974
Madison,  city  of   (Dane
  County) 	   Mar. 8,  1974
Marquette, village of (Green
  Like  County)	   Dec. 28, 1973
Marshall,  village of  (Dane
  County)  	;	   Dec. 17, 1973
Mauston,  city 'of  (Juneau
  County)  	      Do.
Mayville,  city  of   (Dodge
  County)  	   Nov. 30, 1973
Mazomalne, villaga of (Dane
  County)	   Eec. 28, 1973
Melrose, village 01 (Jackson
  County)	_	   Dec. 17, 1973
Merrlllan,  village- of  (Jack-
  son County)	   May 31, 1974
                                 FEDERAL REGIST3R, VOL.  40, NO.  123—WEDNE:DAY, JUNE 25, 1975
-------
{-,(+**•* ft
iS i oo
NOTICES
          W i.'eof! jin—Con ttnued
                               Date of
                            Identification
 aierton, village 01 (Waukeslia
  Connty!  	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Mineral Point, city of (Iowa
  Count?)  	  May 31, 1974
 Mt. Calvary, village of (Fond
  Du Lite County)	  June 7, 1974
 Necedali. village of  (Juneau
  CouatyV  	__.  Jan. 9, 1974
 Neli/om'lUe. village of  (Port-
  age County)	  Jan. 23, 1974
 >tew Lisbon, city of  (Juneau
  County)  	  Dec. 17, 1973
 Onalcwka, cuy of (La  Crosse
  Conn;-/)  	-	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Ontario, village of  (Veraon
  Couii:y)  	  Jan, 9, 1974
 Orlcrdville, village of  (Rock
  Couatj;  		  May 24, 1974
 Osseso,  village of  (Trem-
  pe*leau County)	  May 3, 1974
 Parkeeville,  village  of  (Co-
  lumbia County)	  Dec. 28, 1373
 Park Ridge, village of  (Port-
  age County)	     Do.
 Poplar,  village  of  (Douglas
  County)  	•—     Do.
 Port  Washington,  town  of
  (Ozaukee  County)	  May 31, 1974
 Potosi,  village of   (Grant
  County;  	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Poytiette, village of  (Colum-
  bia County)	  May 3, 1974
 rralrie  Du  Sac, village  of
  (Sauk County;	  Dec. 7, 1973 ,
 Prairie Farm, village  of (Bar-
  ron County)	     Do.
 Prouuce, village of  (Price
  County)  	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Prince ion.  city of   (Green
  Lake  County)	     Do.
 Pii!;k.»:i. village of  (Brown
  County)  	  May 24, 1974
 licit.p-.-inite, village of (Wau-
  kicu-a County)	  May 17, .1974
 Ilia Lrtke, village of (Taylor
  County)		  May 24, 1974
 Rl-e  L.ike,  city of  (Barren
  Cou.i:r)  —		  Dec. 7, 1973
 Ht>-kd.i:e. village  of  (Dane
  Cc-uu'.v)  			     Do.
 Sh'il'ib.irs. city 01 (Lafayette
  r-ouiuv)	  May 17, 1974
 Solon   Springs,  village  of
  (Do\ig\.is  County)	  June 7, 1974
 South Wayne, village of (La-
  fayette County)	  Dec. 7, 1973
 Spring  Green,  village  of
  (Sank County)	     Do-.
 Sprmi;  Valley,  viUage  of
  (Pierce  County)	  June 14. 1974
 Star Pr.iirie, village of  (St.
  Croii County)	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Sturtevent.  village of  (Ba-
 ' cine County)	  May 24, 1974
 St.  Croi.t Falls, city of (Polk
  County)  	     Do.
 St.  Prnr.cis. city of (Milwau-
  kee Co-.mcy)	  June 7, 1974
 Sullivan, village of (Jefferson
  County}  	  Apr. 12, 1974
 Taylor,  village  of  (Jackson
  CO'-cty)  	  Dec. 7, 1973
 Theresa, village of  (Dodge
^ County)  	     Do.
 Waterloo, city of (Jefferson
  County)  	  Dec. 28, 1973
 Waus.iulcee,  village of (Mar-
  laetta County)	  May 24, 1974
 Wautoma, city of (Wanshara
  Count?)  ._	  May 17, 1974
 iVe>st  3araboo,  village  of
  <:=.>.':'; County^—,	  Jin, m, 1974
  esc Benct, city of (Wasnlng-
  trri County; _.		  Dec- 28, 1373
      eld, village  of  (Mar-
  quette County)	  May 24, 1974
                                                   Wisconsin--Continued
                                                                       Date of
                                                                    Identification
                                         Wild Rose, village* of (W«u-
                                           shara County)	  May 31, 1974
                                         Wilton, village of (Monro»
                                           County)  	  May 17, 1974
                                         Wlnnesconne,   village   of
                                           (TYinnebago County)	  Jan. IB, 1974
                                         Wisconsin Dells, city of  (Co-
                                           lumbia  County)	  Dec. 17, 1973
                                         Wonewoc, village of (Juneau
                                           County)  	  Dec. 7, 1973
                                         Woodman,  village of  (Grant
                                           County)  	  Jan. 16, 1974
                                         Woodville,  village of  (St.  May 24,1974
                                           Croix County>	  	•
                                               Total 	           113

                                                         Wyoming
                                         Du'oois, town  of (Fremont
                                           County)  	'.	  Jan. 23, 1974
                                         Jackson,  town  of  ' (Teton
                                           County)  	  May 10, 1974
                                         gem merer, town of (Lincoln
                                           County)  	  Mar. 29, 1974
                                         Laramie,  city  of  (Albany
                                           County)  		  Apr. 5, 1974
                                         Biverton,  city of (Fremont
                                           County)  	  Mar. 29, 1974
                                         Saratoga,  town of  (Carron
                                           County)  	  June 14, 1974
                                         Torrtngton, town of (Goshen
                                           County)  	  Mar. 15, 1974
                                         Wheatland, town  of  (Platte
                                           County)  	.	  Apr. 12, 1974
                                              Total
                                                                               8
                                              National total-
                                                                            1,979
                                         (National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (title
                                         XIII of the Housing and Urban Development
                                         Act of 19S8):  effective Jan. 28, 1939 C33 FK
                                         17804, Nov. 28. 1968), as  airlanded,  42 TJ.S.C.
                                         4001-4128; and Secretary's delegation of au-
                                         thority to Federal Insurance Administrator,
                                         34 FR 2680, Feb. 27, 1939)  as amended 39
                                         FR 2787, Jan. 24,1974.

                                           Dated: June 17,1975.
                                                        J. ROBERT HUNTER,
                                                    Acting Federal Insurance
                                                                Administrator.
                                           [FR Doc.75-16504 Filed 6-24-75;8:4.5 am]


                                         Office of Interstate Land Sales Registration
                                                   [Docket No. N-75-380)
                                           EDELWEISS MOUNTAIN  DEVELOPER
                                                         Hearing
                                           In the matter  of Edelweiss Mountain
                                         Developer, Blaci  Forest  Development,
                                         Inc., OILSB No. 0-3200-47-2, Docket No.
                                         ED-75-8.
                                           Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1706(b>  and 24
                                         CFB 1720.155(W notice is hereby given
                                         that:
                                           1.  Black Forest Development, Inc., De-
                                         veloper  of Edelweiss Mountain Subdivi-
                                         sion, its  officers and agents, hereinafter
                                         referred to as "Respondent," being sub-
                                         ject  to the provisions of  the* Interstate
                                         Land Sales Full Disclosure Act  (Pub. L.
                                         90-443) (15 U.S.C.  1701 et seq.), received
                                         a Notice  of  Suspension dated  May  19,
                                         1975.  which  was sent  to  the  developer
                                         pursuant  to  15 U.S.C. 1706(b)  and 24
                                         on; I720.45(a> informing the cereioper
                                         '.rua ;•-.  amended  Snasemei't; o:  Retord
                                         submitted April 28,1975, for BUc'c Forest
                                         Development, Inc., Edelweiss Mountain
                                         Subdivision,   located  in   Fenninston
                          County, South Dakota, was not effective
                          purs'uant to the Act, and the rejuLv-iorts
                          contained in 24 CFR Part 1710.
                            2. The  Respondent  fUed  an  anirver
                          dated  June 10, 1&75, in answer  to  th-2
                          allesations of  the notice oi" suspeiijlon
                          dated May 13,1975.
                            3. In said Answer the Roepondeat re-
                          quested a hearing- on the allegations Con-
                          tained in the notice of  suspension.
                            4. Therefore, pursuant to the  provi-
                          sions of 15 U.S.C. 1706'b)  and 24 CPU
                          1720.1551 b), it is hereby ordered, That a
                          public hearing for the purpose of  taking
                          evidence on the questions set forth ir. the
                          Notice- of Suspension will be held  cefore
                          James  W.  Mast, Administrative Law
                          Judse,  in  Room 7146, Department  of
                          HUD  Building,  451  7th  Street, S7/.,
                          Washington, D.C. en Ju'ne 25, 1275, at i
                          p.m.
                            The following time and  procedure is
                          applicable to such hearing:
                            All affidavits and a list of all witnesam are
                          requested to be filed, with the Hearing Clei'k.
                          HtTD Building, Boom 10150, Washington, D.C.
                          20410 on or before June 23, 197S.
                            5. The Respondent is hereby notified
                          that failure to appef.r at the afcov?  sched-
                          uled hearing shall.be deemed  £ iefauii
                          and the suspension of the  Statement of
                          Record, herein identified, shall continue
                          until vacated by order of the Secretary,
                          pursuant to 24 CFR 1720.155.
                            This notice shall be served upon  tha
                          Respondent  forthwith  pursuant  to  24
                          CFR 1720.440.
                            By the Secretary.
                                             JAM23 VV. MlST,
                                     Administrative Laiv Judse.
                            [FH Doc.75-16507 Filed 6-24-75;8:45 am]
                                    [Docket No. K-75-a79j

                                 KULA  KAI VIEW ESTATES
                                          Belong
                            In  the  matter  of  Kula Kai  "View
                          Estates, OILSR No. 0-1147-14-18 Docket
                          No, Y-183-IS.
                            Pursuant to 15 TJ.S.C. 1706(d>  and 24
                          CFR 1720.1SO(d> notice Is hereby given
                          thati
                            1. Hawaii Kona  Kai, Inc., JonI John-
                          ston, President,  its officers r:nd  agents,
                          hereinafter referred- to as "Respondent."
                          being sub.jecn to the provisions of tile In-
                          terstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act
                          (Pub, L. 90-448)  (15 U.S.C. 170! et seq.>,
                          received a Notice of Proceedings and Op-
                          portunity  for  Hearing issued  May  15,
                          1575,  which was sent  -to  the developer
                          pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  1706(d), 24  CFR
                          1710.45
-------
     CT:
FROM:.
TO:
Flood Insurance Requirements Effective
July 1, 1975
                                  PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM  MO
Alvln L. Aim                      Program Guidance Memorandum £2r
Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management (PM-208)pj

Regional Administrators                                       'JUL o
                Enclosed you will  find  an  advance  copy of  a  revised  information
           sheet relating to flood insurance  purchase  requirements for  our gran-c
           programs.   The legal  requirements  are also  found  in  the final  general
           grant regulations published  on  May 8 (40 CFR 30.405-10).

                Effective July 1,  1975  (or one year after  a  community's notifi-
           cation of identification as  a'flood-prone community, whichever is
           later),- EPA is prohibited by law from making any  grant for acquisition
           or construction purposes in  a flood hazard  area unless the community
           in which the project is located is participating  in  the flood
           insurance program and flood  insurance  is purchased by the grantee.

                The lfst\pf communities to which  this  prohibitiop^pul IL'IJ un-^
          ^yJv T» 1975, ^fes' just  been  published  by HUD in the^^deral  Registejy
                 ~2b~/4u'-i!b/ti6).   I am enclosing a  copy of  this  rfe-fe""{w.-.yuwr*'*'
           information and use.   The list  will be  regularly  updated  by  notice  in
           the Federal Register as other communities pass  the one year  mark.

                EPA Regional Offices'have  been receiving copies of HUD's monthly
           listings of areas eligible for  the purchase of  flood insurance and
           areas which have had special flood hazard areas identified but which
           are not participating in the program.   Regional offices have also
           been receiving copies of the maps  issued by HUD delineating  the flood
           hazard areas.  Procedures should be immediately instituted to ensure
           that no grants are made in violation of the statutory requirement.

                If not already done, an individual should  be designated in your
           office to be familiar with the  flood insurance  requirements  and to
           "handle questions which  may arise from time  to time from your own
           staff, as well as from grant applicants and grantees. Questions
           which you may wish to direct to headquarters on this subject should
           be addressed to the Director, Grants Administration  Division (PM-216),
           202-755-0860.
           Enclosures
EPA Fom. 1320-4 (R,.. 6-72)
-------
 _,' os'v.
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                             WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460                   August  5,  1975


                                   PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM  PRM  NO. 75-29
                                   Program Guidance Memorandum  PG-56
SUBJECT:  EPA Procedures in Initiating Oebarment Actions
          Against Grantee Contractors

FROM:     Alvin L. Aim, Assistant Administrator
          for Plannin.g-£ad ManagemerU: (PM-208)
          James rT'Agee, Assistant Administrator
          for Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)

TO:       All Regional Administrators
               EPA may initiate debarment proceedings against a grantee
          contractor for:

               1.  Wage rate violations under the provisions of the Davis
               Bacon-Act.  This Act provides for the use of minimum wage
               rates determined by the Department of Labor.

               2.  Equal  Employment Opportunity violations.  These provisions,
               set forth  in Executive Order 11246, deal  with racial, religious,
               etc., discrimination, as detailed in 40 CFR 8.8 through 8.14.

               3.  Contract Work, Hours and Safety Standards Act violations.
               This Act contains overtime provisions.

               4.  Copeland Act violations.  This Act contains anti-kickback
               provisions.   Debarment resulting from violations of the
               Copeland Act can proceed only after such  violations have
               been established through adjudicatory proceedings.

               Upon finding evidence or being notified of significant
          violations, the Regional Contract Compliance Officer, working
          in concert with the Regional Counsel, prepares a memorandum citing
          the particulars of the case including all pertinent evidence.  This
          memorandum, along with recommendations, is then forwarded, under
          the signature of the Regional Administrator, to the Grants
          Administration  Division, 0PM.
-------
                             -2-
     The submission is  reviewed by both  the  Compliance  Staff and
the Office of General  Counsel.   If, as a result  of these  reviews,
it appears that sufficient justification for debarment  exists,
the Compliance Staff will  notify the Department  of Labor  of its
intent to file for debarment and, concurrently,  request an  informal
reading on the merits  of the case.  If the  Department of  Labor
indicates that the case has merit, EPA will  formally submit
charges to the Department and request the initiation of disbarment
proceedings.

     Department of Labor procedures include  an intensive  review
of the evidence and formal hearings.  If debarment is ordered,
appeal hearings may be held.  General notification of debarment
is effected by the General Accounting Office which publishes
quarterly, and updates monthly, lists of companies and  persons
debarred.
-------
      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON.  D C.  20460

                         S£? 6  1975
                               PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-30
                               Program Guidance Memorandum PG-57


SUBJECT:  Cost Control

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-446)

TO:       All Regional Administrators
          Attn:  Director, Water Programs Division

I.  Purpose:

     This program guidance memorandum provides information on cost
control  measures to ensure project reviews include full consideration of
cost-effectiveness in design.

II.  Background:

     Under Section 212(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act
Amendments of 1972, the grant applicant must demonstrate that the pro-
posed treatment works is the most cost-effective to meet the goals of
the Act.  The intent of the Act is to make sure that grant funds are
properly managed throughout the project.

     This requirement of the Act is implemented in Section 35.917(d) and
Appendix A of the construction grant regulations.  The grant applicant
is required to evaluate alternatives and select the most cost-effective
(including full consideration of non-quantifiable environmental  and
social factors).  Cost-effectiveness procedures are an integral  part of
the Step I facility planning process and the Step II preparation qf
plans and specifications.

III.  Value Engineering:

          To extend the cost-effectiveness effort to all components  of
the project, as intended by the Act, an interim value engineering (VE)
program was introduced in December 1974.   The VE methodology is  designed
to focus on function and value and has been demonstrated to be effective
in controlling cost and thereby assuring quality and value design.
However, because the present VE program is based on voluntary participa-
tion, it can be expected that many projects will  not be subjected to
such cost review.  This means significant resources could be spent with
very little benefit as a result of undetected "gold plating."  Waste in
-------
this nature may seem small in relation to the total  project cost, but in
terms of the entire construction grant program, it could amount to
millions of dollars.  In view of this, it is essential  that the Regional
office review procedure be sensitive to the need for cost-effective
design.

IV.  Types of high costs to be alert for in construction grant projects:

     a.  Major unrealistic costs may first appear in the facility plan-
ning process.  In this case the total cost for the project appears un-
reasonable and inappropriate for the project scope.   For example, a 4
million gallon per day treatment plant, treating primarily domestic
sewage to meet secondary treatment at a cost of $20 million would merit
further investigation.  Similarly, a 20 million gallon  per day plant
designed to use the extended aeration process should be looked at very
closely to be sure all cost-effective alternatives have been considered.
By good cost review of the facility plan the project manager can forestall
needless expenditure of Step II effort on designs which-are not cost-
effective and save time in the Step II review process.

     b.  "Gold plating" costs may appear in the Step II design and are
much more difficult to detect.  These costs can occur as the Step II
design proceeds and include design details which require expensive con-
struction techniques, specification of high cost items  which are not
cost-effective, and inefficient plant layout, buildings, or hydraulics.
Identifying gold plating in-a project design requires an experienced re-
viewer with knowledge of plant design and cost-effective design alterna-
tives.  In looking for gold plating in a Step II design, the following
points are to be considered.

          (1)  Plant aesthetics and appearance (landscaping, building
finishes) are important features in many locations.   While recognizing
this importance of aesthetics, it is also necessary that the design
solutions to solve aesthetic problems also be cost-effective.

          (2)  The cost review should concentrate on high cost areas
of the project.  Extensive cost review effort on minor items with no
significant cost impact is a misdirection of effort.
-------
V.  Techniques for identifying potential unnecessary high costs:

     a.  Cost curves.  When used carefully, cost curves can be an effective
tool for identifying high cost projects and high cost areas within a
project.

     b.  Value Engineering(VE).  Value engineering techniques such as
cost to worth ratio and functional cost models are a good method  to
isolate areas with potential for cost control.  If the project has
already been subject to VE review (see Program Guidance Memorandum 45)
then it is likely that gold plating has been removed.

     c.  Cost models.  Cost models have been developed in various VE
workshops for individual projects.  An example is attached.  In the
model, two separate costs are provided for each component or system
within a project.  The higher cost represents estimated design cost and
the lower one the worth.  Worth is defined as the lowest initial  cost to
perform the required function.  Ideally, the ratios of these two  costs
should approach 1.0, but in practice it is rarely less than 2.0.   When
the ratio exceeds about 3.5, excessive cost is probably present.   This
procedure allows quick determination of possible gold plating areas in
the project.  Detailed review will confirm whether this is actually the
case.

VI.  Action to take when potential excessive cost or gold plating
     is present:


     a.  Preventive measures.  Gold plating can be eliminated when
the project is subject to VE review.  To ensure that project completion
is not delayed, the applicant should be encouraged to incorporate VE at
an early stage of the Step  II design.  This will simplify and speed-up
the final review process.  Thorough review of the facility plan will
also speed-up the Step II review by identifying and eliminating major
excess cost items.

     b.  Value engineering.  Although not as efficient when performed on
the completed Step  11 design, VE can identify gold plating and develop
more cost-effective alternatives.  In-house (EPA) VE studies can  be
performed or the grant applicant can be requested to accomplish VE on
the design as a condition of further grants.
-------
     c.  Specific requests to the grant applicant.   When there are
clearly identified excessive costs with significant impact the grant
applicant can be requested to develop alternatives  or show specific
portions of the project are cost-effective.   In order to avoid delay
this should be initiated either by telephone or by  a meeting.   It may be
found that there is a simple explanation for what appears to be excessive
cost.  In many cases a conditional grant can be used, subject to reduction
of the excessive costs.

Attachment
-------
MODEL PLANT r~j
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
o
o
•4


^ACTUAL j 	 J.0..93J

.-
1
PROCESS
J 0.255
L 	 	 Jo
L-


t.i-T.---—
UJ
8 s
3 a
1
r 	
UJ
u
u_
UJ
z

a

i... ..-..
ADDITIONAL

2
s

*?1 ".T^.vTT'^l
'•'i
i
..i
j
d1
i
•;l
J
i
'j
PROCESSING

o

r~-
WASTE
TRANSPORT


r-'^s
(:.::.
njSP. SOLIDS
REMOVAL

r- — "i rr-r
1 	 1 !.._.
SECONDARY

O
0

O'
1
J
j
SETTLING TANK


o
d
:il
1
y
r. 7S.7T
TRANSPORT

o
o

f 	 :.
0
2
Q.
s
o
i
1
i
1
.J
~]
S
r^rr ^ .rr-:rr.r

DISPOSAL


1

r
o
Q.
0.
n
o
o

^T*
d
71
1
H
p-.pi- —
BOD REMOVAL
I
I
~1 f"
s

i 	 1 r" -
i 	 . f •..
PRELIMINARY/
PRIMARY
$0.05


r- 	
t..
OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT
tO.Oi


Si
J
i
1
.J
O'"'
°i
...i
1
J
SCREENING

si
.;.)
AERATION
PROCESS
0.06

1
•;i
.=i
n
d
::
LJ
— ».WB f— > *-" "-
,,. ' 1 	 '
i
j
t—
o

r~
CONTROLS

o
d

3
..
— : r~n
fN
0

f, "'••"' j t.'. £
Q£
i
UJ
J—


o
s

S3
•'1
;i
_J
[ | NORMAL
—
»O
0
d


yf
I1
'{.)
j
•m
(S.
^1
id
MAINTENANCE

o
d
o
d
,

r""*"f
ABNORMAL

z
•••




f" *T
(.....
NUTRIENT
REMOVAL


P..
EQUIPMENT

—
*

1
J
si
i
j
i
o;
UJ
i
0

r-
i
_ —
ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTION
0.04

i
j
o
: cc
f
; O

f~.:.:-.
DISINFECTION

«o
0
0
o
3 .
UJ
r
h-
0
J

"..r~i r..r ~~t r.
3
0

r* '
SETTLING TANK

r
UJ
I
O


ol
d
1
1
J
""""i
a
o
d
^ -
o
o"

i
\
\
\
.1
1
j

TANKS

g
d
d
tJC
UJ
1 5
J

&
•
Q.
1
§1
j
1 1
J
1
-^
ii

o a
3 f
it §
!!§!!
Ql° n 4 S 5
£| E S £ -1 1
Ol - 3 * "5 *
•H e « S 1 J
-40-
-------
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  WASHINGTON, D.C 20460

                               PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-31
                               Program Guidance Memorandum PG-58

SUBJECT:  Facilitating EIS Preparation with
          Joint EIS/Assessments  (Piggybacking)           'jE*' 1975

FROM:      Sheldon Meyers, Director
          Office of Federal Activities

          John T. Rhett
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for
            Water Program Operations

TO:       Regional Administrators
Purpose

     At the EIS Preparation Conference  in  April  1975,
many regional participants expressed  interest  in the
joint ElS/environmental assessment  (piggybacking)  procedure
developed by Region IX to facilitate  the preparation  of
EIS's.  This memorandum is to provide guidance for con-
sistent implementation of this procedure,  whenever it is
used in any region, according to the  requirements of  40 CFR 6.

Description of Joint ElS/assessments

     The procedure is the preparation of a combined EIS
and environmental assessment.  The  procedure  is  initiated
by a regional office early in the planning process.  When
the state priority lists are completed, a  Regional
Administrator should decide which projects require EIS's
by applying the NEPA criteria to plans  of  study  and other
project information requested or received  from the grantee
or state.  Once the decision to prepare an EIS has been
made, the regional office enters into an agreement with
the grantee to prepare a joint ElS/environmental assessment,
using the grantee's consultant to perform  the environmental
analyses.  While the grantee may retain the same consultant
for ']IS preparation and facility planning, the use of
separate consultants is recommended to  ensure compliance
with 40 CFR 35.939-2, the code of conduct  under  EPA's
procurement regulations for construction grants  which
requires the grantee to  "avoid personal or organizational
conflicts of interest or noncompetitive procurement practices
which restrict or eliminate competion or otherwise restrain
trade."
-------
     After the agreement is signed and the Step 1 grant
awarded, the EPA project manager or project team works
closely with the grantee and interested public groups to prepare
the joint ElS/assessment, carefully documenting participa-
tion with the grantee to show EPA's compliance with NEPA
requirements.  This documentation can be in the form of
reports on EPA meetings with the grantee during scheduled
review cycles of the EIS text, written approval of the
grantee's submitted environmental data or other correspondence
prepared during the EIS preparation.  All documentation
should be available for public scrutiny in a project file.

     Using the procedure, the grantee's environmental assess-
ment and EPA's draft EIS are the same document and can be
completed within the 12 months during which the facilities
plan is prepared.  Region IX perceives as one of the major
objectives of facilities planning the integration of environmental
considerations at the earliest stage of facilities planning,
even when the procedure is used and the consultant preparing
the facilities plan does not prepare the environmental
assessment.  Once a decision has been made to prepare a
joint ElS/assessment in Region IX, the regional office
actively manages all parties responsible for developing
and evaluating solutions to a water quality problem:  EPA,
the grantee, the state agencies and the two consultants.
Representatives from each of these groups attend meetings
to share information throughout preparation of the facilities
plan and ElS/assessment under-the supervision of EPA.  EPA's
primary participatory roles are identifying the issues;
maintaining effective communications among the groups
performing the economic, environmental and engineering
studies; reviewing submissions from the grantee's consultants
and making final decisions regarding the EIS's content and
approach.  The EIS would not duplicate engineering details
in the facilities plan.  Conversely, the facilities plan should
reference, instead of duplicate, the environmental analyses
in the EIS.  Region IX publishes the facilities plan and the
EIS as separate documents, but both are discussed at consecutive
or joint public hearings held by the grantee and EPA.

     While the procedure can reduce the time between Step 1
grant award and Step 2 grant award, it can only be used
effectively when the NEPA decision is made before or early
during Step 1 planning.  A regional office must take an
active role in getting data on which to base the NEPA
decision, rather than waiting until facilities plans and
grant applications are submitted.
-------
     If the Regional Administrator makes an initial
decision early during Step 1 planning not to prepare an EIS
on a project, then a project manager or project team from
the regional office can work informally with the grantee
to prepare a thorough environmental assessment as part of
the facilities plan, using one or more consultants as
necessary to ensure an interdisciplinary approach to facilities
planning.  In these cases/ the regional office may not have to
commit the same level of resources to Step 1 grant activities;
however, working with the grantee and interested public
groups to produce the environmental assessment will
facilitate preparation of EPA's environmental appraisal
and negative declaration.

Compliance with NEPA Regulations


     The NEPA regulations for preparing EIS's on nonregulatory
programs  (40 FR 16814) describe a procedure for conducting
an environmental review of a project, using available data;
making a decision to prepare an EIS or a negative declaration,
and encouraging public participation in the decision-making
process  (§6.104).  While the regulation states that the
environmental assessment is used to decide if an EIS is
needed and to prepare one if necessary, it also states
that the environmental assessment is not the only document
which can be used for the environmental review  (§6.202) .
In fact, the criteria for determining when to prepare an
EIS (§6.200 and §6.510) must be applied to a proposed EPA action,
regardless of the sources of data on the action.  Therefore,
even though the grantee's environmental assessment should be
the most complete single source of data on and analysis of
environmental effects of a project, the regulations do not
preclude conducting an environmental review and making the
NEPA decision before the assessment is prepared.

Organizational Requirements

     Each region will have to adapt the program to its
internal organization.  After talking with several regions,
three organizational patterns emerged which can serve as
examples of how the procedure can be implemented.

     In Region IX, EIS preparation, facilities planning
and grants evaluation/management are in the Water Programs
Division.  This division has two branches; one is responsible
for Step 1 grants and the other for Step 2 and Step 3
grants.  Branch sections are organized geographically.
-------
One project evaluator or area engineer from the Step 1
branch manages a total project, including EIS preparation,
within the geographical area to which he is assigned;
he may request technical assistance from personnel in
other divisions with specific expertise, such ac air
quality analysis.  The project evaluator also coordinates
work schedules and data exchanges between the consultant
preparing the facilities plan and the consultant preparing
the EIS.

     In other regions, facilities planning, construction grants
management and EIS preparation may be separate or may be
combined in a variety of ways within divisions.  In these
cases, there is the problem of possible breakdowns in
communications among the branches and with the contractors,
causing delays in a project.  However, internal communications
can be maintained through joint preapplication conferences
with potential grantees, joint evaluation of project data,
joint reviews of the contractors' submissions and internal
planning meetings.

     Region VIII has adopted a team approach to project
management which can facilitate preparing joint ElS/assessments
with two contractors.  The region is divided into geographical
areas; projects in each area are managed by a team consisting
of one staff member from each of the four Water Program Office
divisions:  the grants office, the control technology branch,
the planning branch and the environmental evaluation branch.
The grants engineer is the overall team leader and can call
on other divisions for assistance on a project-by-project
basis.  If an EIS is being prepared on a project, the team
member from the environmental evaluation branch takes the
management lead for that project.

Advantages of Joint ElS/assessments

     Region IX has used the procedure in several states,
both with and without state NEPA legislation, and has
shortened the time between Step 1 grant award and Step 2
grant award by three to nine months (the time required to
prepare an EIS without the procedure).  In addition to time
savings, the procedure offers other advantages.  It allows
a more effective use of regional personnel and contract
resources because the grantee's consultant has more staff
with environmental expertise available to prepare the
document; the draft EIS serves more effectively as a decision-
making tool, exerting more influence on the selection of
alternatives considered in the facilities plan than would
be possible had the EIS been prepared later.
-------
Examples of Piggybacked EIS's Prepared by Region IX

     Aliso Water Management Agency (draft)

     Serra (Orange County) Ocean Outfall  (draft)

     City of Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant  (final)

Appendices

     Appendices A through D include samples prepared by
Region IX of a letter proposing a joint ElS/assessment procedure
to a grantee, a memorandum of understanding between EPA and a
grantee outlining conditions and procedures for preparing a
joint ElS/assessment, an EIS issue paper prepared by the regional
office for the grantee, and a legal memorandum on the procedure
from the Office of General Counsel.

     The pertinent requirements of Program Guidance Memorandum 53,
"Interim Guidance - Consulting Engineering Agreements -
Title II Construction Grants Program," July 8, 1975, should
be incorporated into any memoranda of understanding between
EPA and grantees when the procedure is used.  In addition, the
requirements of 40 CFR 35.939-2  (Code or  Standards of Conduct),
in the proposed regulation for minimum standards for procurement
under EPA grants  (40 FR 20296) should be  used as interim guidance
for approving the grantee's consultants under the procedure.
-------
 APPENDIX A






SAMPLE LETTER
-------
      UNI ' LD STA ' LS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                       OFFICF OF THF
                                                       ADMINISTRATOR
(Grantee Name and Address)

Re:  Regional Wastewater Manageinent Facilities
     Project (Number)

Dear (Grantee):

     As you know, it is the intent of EPA to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) on the subject project
in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA).   There are two alternative approaches to
achieving this objective.  The first is for EPA to initiate
preparation of the EIS after completion by your agency
of the Environmental Impact Report  (EIR) which would
normally be required under Federal and State regulations.*
The second and preferable approach is for our agencies to
participate in a cooperative effort to produce a  "joint
EIS" which would satisfy both Federal and State regulations
and eliminate the need for the separate preparation of
an EIR by your agency.*

     We believe the  joint EIS alternative is preferable
since it would allow thorough examination of environmental
impacts and integration of environmental factors  into the
facilities planning  and decision making process.  The
joint EIS would be prepared by a consultant under contract
to your agency with  the understanding that EPA would be
involved in all phases of preparation and all work would
be subject to EPA review and approval.  Further,  the
joint EIS would be considered part of the Step 1  facilities
planning process and, therefore, eligible for State and
Federal funding  (12-1/2 percent and 75 percent, respectively).*
     *Sentence raust be modified  for  grantees  in  states
other than California.
-------
      We believe two consultants are necessary for the
joint EIS/EIR* procedure; one to represent the Federal
interest in EIS concerns and one to represent your
interest in the facilities planning responsibilities.

     Therefore, if our agencies are to Select the joint EIS
alternative, it will be necessary for your agency to
retain a consultant for EIS preparation who is separate
from and not subcontracted to the consultant preparing the
facilities plan and construction designs.  Selection of this
consultant should be based on (a) identified expertise
in areas of environmental concern (water quality,
oceanography,  groundwater resources, biology, land use,
air quality, archaeology, etc.), (b) proven ability to
perform EIR/EIS type analyses,*  (c)  ability to produce
thorough, readable and informative documents, and (d)
good working knowledge of CEQA/NEPA regulations* and
applicable local ordinances.  Your agency may choose to
advertise and accept proposals for this EIS work.  EPA
will review and approve the proposed contract with the
EIS consultant prior to its execution.  It would of
course, be necessary for the facilities planning consultant
and EIS consultant to coordinate their efforts and exchange
information throughout the planning process.  We would
see no conflict in having the facilities planning consultant
perform the technical study and provide the EIS consultant
with the information required to assess the environmental
impacts of the alternatives.

     If you choose not to use the joint EIR/EIS* procedure,
we will retain our own EIS consultant to prepare a separate
document.  This consultant would begin preparing the EIS after
the draft EIR is completed by your agency.*  If the joint EIR/
EIS* alternative is acceptable to your agency, we request
     *Phrase must be modified for grantees in states other
than California.
-------
                     - 3 -
your signature on the attached memorandum, of understanding
acknowledging the conditions of and procedures to be followed
in the EIS preparation.  If you have any further questions,
please contact (appropriate staff person).

                           Sincerely,
                           4Appropriate EPA Official)

Attachment
-------
           APPENDIX B
SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
-------
                   MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
                             BETWEEN
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               AND

                        (Name of Grantee)

             (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE GRANTEE)
                               FOR
        JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION
I.     INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE

           It has been determined that an Environmental Inpact
      Statement (EIS)  must be prepared prior to the award of a
      construction grant for the Grantee's wastewater treatment
      project.  The EIS must comply with all provisions of the
      National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the
      California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),  all
      subsequent regulations implementing these laws, and any
      applicable local requirements.

           It is the purpose of this memorandum to establish
      an understanding between the Grantee and EPA regarding
      the conditions and procedures to be followed in prepara-
      tion of the EIS through a joint Grantee/EPA effort.

II.   GENERAL PROVISIONS

      1.  EPA will be the lead agency in the joint effort to
          prepare an EIS and will be ultimately responsible
          for assuring compliance with the requirements of NEPA.

      2.  The Grantee will provide the supportive expertise,
          manpower and technical capabilities required for EIS
          preparation.  The Grantee will be responsible for
          assuring compliance with CEQA and applicable local
          requirements.

      3.  The Grantee will retain a consultant for EIS
          preparation who is separate from and not sub-
          contracted to the consultant preparing the
          facilities plan and construction designs.
     *Paragraphs must be modified for grantees in states
other than California.
-------
                       -2-
           a.  Selection  of  the  EIS  consultant  should  be  based  on:

              1.   Identified expertise  in  the  areas of
                  environmental concern (water quality,
                  oceanography, groundwater  resources,
                  biology,  land use,  air quality,
                  archaeology,  etc.),

              2.   proven ability to perform  environmental
                  impact analyses,

              3.   ability to produce thorough, readable
                  and informative documents, and

              4.   evidence  of a good working knowledge of
                  NEPA,  CEQA, the corresponding regulations   *
                  and applicable local  ordinances.

           b.  The Grantee will  comply with applicable
              Federal,  State, and local regulations
              regarding  subagreement contracting.

           c.  EPA will review and approve  the  Grantee's
              selected consultant and their  proposed  contract
              prior to execution.  The  Grantee shall  include
              the following language in all  consultant
              contracts:  "This contract is  funded  in
              part  by a grant  from the U.S. Environmental
              Protection Agency. This  contract is  subject
              to regulations contained  in  40 CFR  35,
              Subchapter B.  Neither the United States nor
              the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency is
              a party to this contract."

        4.  Both the Grantee and EPA shall:

           a.  Actively participate  in all  substantial phases
              of EIS preparation.

           b.  Designate a representative to  review  and approve
              all EIS work as it is completed.

           c.  Have their respective representatives  attend
              regular meetings  with Federal, State,  regional
              and local agencies for the purpose  of  increasing
              communication and receiving  comments.
     *Paragraph must be modified for grantees in states
other than California.
-------
          d.  Ensure  coordination  of  efforts  and  exchange  of
             information  between  the facilities  planning
             consultant and  the EIS  consultant.

          e.  Establish a  mutually agreed  upon  time  schedule
             for completion  of the EIS.

       5.  In  all instances  involving questions as to  the  content
          or  relevance of any material  (including all data,
          analyses,  and conclusions) in the  draft or  final EIS,
          EPA will make the  final determination  on  the inclusion or
          deletion of that  material.

       6.  All necessary costs incurred by the  Grantee for
          the EIS preparation and compliance with NEPA/CEQA
          will be eligible  for Federal/State grant  participation   i
          upon approval of  the work  by EPA.  Before payment  is made
          to  the consultant, the  Grantee  should  confirm with EPA
          that the work will be  approved  and therefore be eligible
          for grant participation.
IV.     PROCEDURES
       1.  Initially EPA will provide the Grantee with an
           "issue paper" describing the paramount concerns to
           be addressed in the EIS.**  This issue paper will be
           used by the Grantee as a supplement to the EPA
           regulations implementing the National Environmental
           Policy Act of 1969.  Issues thus identified
           will be modified only in the event that signifi-
           cant policy changes occur which affect EIS scope
           or as a result of the public participation process.
           EPA will also provide to the Grantee an outline
           defining the organization and content of the docu-
           ment. ***

       2.  The Grantee will have primary responsibility for
           writing all chapters of the EIS and for establishing
     *Paragraphs must be modified for grantees in states
other than California.

    **See Appendix C.

   ***See Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements.
-------
                  - 4 -
    a schedule for completion of those chapters which is
    consistent with the overall time schedule mentioned
    above.

3.   The Grantee will ensure the coordination of the EIS
    and facilities plan time schedules.

4.   Within  the established time schedule,  the Grantee
    will provide EPA with no less than two opportunities
    to review, comment, and make editorial changes on
    each draft chapter.  EPA will provide  these comments
    in a timely manner.  The Grantee shall incorporate
    these comments and-*editorial changes into the
    draft chapters to the satisfaction of EPA.  Final
    drafts  will be submitted to EPA for review and
    approval.

5.   Generally, joint meetings between the  Grantee, EPA
    and the EIS consultant will be held to coordinate
    EIS preparation.  It is anticipated that the
    facilities planning consultant may attend certain
    of these meetings.  Additionally, EPA staff may at
    times work directly with the EIS consultant without
    the participation of the Grantee.  When significant
    meetings or conversations between EPA and the
    consultant occur, written documentation will be
    provided to the Grantee.

6.   At key points during preparation of the draft EIS
     (especially during the early stages),  the Grantee
    will be responsible for organizing and conducting
    public workshops considered necessary to foster public
    familiarity with and input to the facilities planning/
    EIS process.  The Grantee will prepare the "background
    and issues document" to be used as the basis for any
    workshop.   This document will also be subject to
    EPA review and approval.  The Grantee will prepare
    a summary of each public workshop which will include
    a list of the significant concerns identified during
    the workshop.

7.   The Grantee will be responsible for all typing,
    graphics,  layout, printing and distribution of the
    draft and Final EIS.
-------
       8.   EPA  will  provide  the  Grantee with  the  distribution
           list for  EIS  mailing.

       9.   Upon completion of the  draft EIS,  EPA  will  be
           responsible  for organizing and  conducting the
           public  hearings required by 40  CFR Part  6.   EPA
           will also be  the  recipient of all  comments  during
           the  draft EIS review  and comment period.  This
           period  (45-60 days) will be initiated  when  the
           Council on Environmental Quality  (CEQ) publishes
           the  "draft EIS receipt" in the  Federal Register.

      10.   At the  close  of the draft EIS review and comment
           period, EPA  will  identify the issJues and comments
           submitted which will  require response  in the final
           EIS.  EPA will direct these comments to  the grantee
           and  the appropriate parties for preparation of  the
           responses.

       11.   Upon completion  of the responses  to the comments
            on  the draft EIS, EPA will provide these responses
            to  the Grantee and the EIS consultant for  inclusion
            into the final EIS.   The EIS consultant will modify
            the text of the  draft EIS as directed by EPA.

       12.   Upon EPA approval of the final EIS the  Grantee will
            distribute  the document according to  the distribution
            list provided and/or revised by  EPA.

V.     TERMINATION

        1.   Either party to  this Memorandum of Understanding
            may terminate this agreement  after 30 days prior
            notice to the other  party.  During the  intervening
            30 days both parties agree to  actively  attempt to
            resolve any outstanding disputes or disagreements.

        2.   In the event of termination of the agreement,  EPA
            will  initiate preparation of the Federal EIS upon
            completion of an Environmental Impact Report by
            the Grantee and environmental  consultant.
        *Paragraphs must be modified for grantees in states
   other than California.
-------
                            - 6 -
For the Environmental Protection Agency



Date:



Signed:




             Name



For the (grantee)




Date:



Signed:




             Name
(Appropriate  EPA Official)



 Title
 Title
-------
    APPENDIX C
SAMPLE ISSUE PAPER
-------
                   MPWPCA EIS ISSUES
     The E;PA has declared its intent to prepare an HIS
on the HPWPCA facilities plan because:  1) the study  area
includes valuable biological, recreational, cultural  and
aesthetic resources, 2) certain environmental problems
ru-.ve become evident which threaten the area's resources,
3) alternatives to be examined in the facilities plan may
have significant impacts on the area's environment  (both
adverse and beneficial) , 4) previous water cruality con-
trol plans have identified questions which must be re-
solved before specific  facilities or Itaging of facilities
can 'oa justifiably proposed, and 5) the public and govern-
iv.untal controversy which has in the past  surrounded
v.'astevater projects in  this area is likely to continue.

     Tne major issues to be thoroughly addressed in the
        the following:

     ultimate Effluent Disposition. Although  all  viable
     alternatives v/ill be analyzed, focus will  be on:

     a)Reclamation/Reuse:  Past  planning has  indicated
         that there  is significant potential  for  agricul-
         tural reuse of  effluent in the Castroville  area.
         How and when such reuse could be implemented,
         the potential of the Castroville Irrigation Pro-
         ject to utilize treated wastewater,  and  rha
         feasibility of  other reclamation options scch
         as groundwater  recharge must be analyzed in
         detail.

     b) Discharge to  the  Scilinas  River:  The  appropriate
         level of treatment  required for this option and
         the impacts whicn year  round or winter discharge
         to the river would  have on water quality, wild-
         life and beneficial uses of the river  and Bay
         must be determined.

     c) Discharge to  central  Monterey Day: Thi cnqoi/.:,
         oceanographic s-;udy will provide date  to c\:.)ic
         assessment  of the impacts of this  alterna'civo.
         Issues related  to this  alternative  have  beer.
         discussed previously.
-------
2}    Project Phasing.  The project may involve phased
     construction.  Thus, alternative phasing will be
     analyzed on the basis of environmental impacts, costs,
     flexibility and ease of implementation.  It will not
     be assumed that the first phase will include an out-
     fall to the Bay.  Given reclamation/reuse as an ulti-
     mate goal, phasing will be closely examined for posi-
     tive or negative impact on the attainment of that
     goal.

3)    Secondary Impacts. The ElS will contain a compre-
     hensive discussion of the probable secondary impacts
     related to the growtn accomodated by the project.
     Included will be impacts on land use,  transportation,
     water supply, energy supply, air quality, sociaj. ser-
     vices and the aesthetics of the area.  Consistency
     of the project with other planning  (land use, air
     quality maintenance, etc.) will oe examined.  The
     EIS will propose measures to mitigate  secondary im-
     pacts where possible.

     Additionally, the EIS will include an  analysis of
     the existing and future dynamics of grov;th  in the
     area to determine the degree to which  the project
     would stimulate future growth.

     These and other issues are incorporated  into the pro-
posed EIS outline which  is attached.  The detailed approach
for each topic will be defined in future meetings and cor-
respondence between MPWPC.-., SPA, SWRC3 and  EIS consu.tant.
Since a thorough analysis of all issues, is  needed, i"; is
imperative that the consultant have  the range of expertise
required to achieve  this end.

     Existing data and previous studies may oe  incorporated
i .1 c.o tne EIS if the consultant can document its  adequacy
„."!'.: accuracy to EPA' s satisfaction.  Such data  and studies
'.'.LII oe updated wherever possible.

     V-dtly, public  involvement in the  facilities plc.nr.ing
.M:.J::OS is a goal of the EIS.  MPWPCA, EPA, and  the  IIS
• " "'  r.T;inhering consultants will coordinate efforts  to
i.- /olvo and inform the public.
-------
         APPENDIX D
LEGAL MEMORANDUM FROM OFFICE
     OF GENERAL COUNSEL
-------
      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                       WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                            MAY 1 5 1975
                                                            OFFICE OF
                                                         GENERAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM


SUBJECT:      "Piggybacking" Approach to Streamlining  Compliance
              with NEPA in Construction Grants
FROM:         G.  William
              Deputy General  Counsel  (EG-330)  3

TO:           Sheldon Meyers
              Director, Office of Federal  Activities  (A-104)
     We have received from your office a request for our views  on  the
proposed "piggybacking" process for NEPA review of construction grant
projects.  This process has been used on a limited basis in  Regions  II
and IX and is now proposed for wider use in those and other  regions.

Description of the process

     Generally, each State's construction grant project priority list
contains projects which EPA regional personnel  are able to identify
as being highly likely prospects for review in  an environmental  impact
statement (EIS) under the National  Environmental Policy Act  (42 U.S.C.
4332 et seq.).  Such an identification derives  from formal or informal
use of EIS preparation criteria set forth in 40 CFR, Part 6, against
the background of the particular knowledge which people in each region
have concerning the controversial nature or peculiar problems of given
projects.  Normally, work under a Step 1 construction grant  for each
such project would include development by the grantee and his consult-
ant of an environmental assessment which, when  delivered to  EPA for
review with the facilities plan, would result in a decision  to prepare
an EIS or a negative declaration.  "Piggybacking," however,  would result
in immediate initiation of EIS preparation, generally by a separate  EIS
consultant, upon award of the Step 1 grant for each project  determined
in advance to be highly likely to result in a decision to prepare an
EIS.  The obvious advantage of the approach is that the period of time
in which the assessment would normally be prepared—as much  as a year
or more—would be eliminated.  The facilities planning contractor would
not prepare an assessment under the Step 1 grant.  For those projects
which did not proceed immediately to an EIS using the "piggyback"
approach, the grantee would follow the regular procedure of  prepara-
tion and submission to EPA of an environmental  assessment.  EPA personnel
would then determine, based on the criteria in 40 CFR, Part 6, whether
or not to prepare an EIS, in the same manner as is presently the case.
-------
Federal participation in EIS preparation

     Under existing practices, an environmental assessment is prepared
by the grantee (and its consultant) with varying levels of Federal
involvement.  To an extent not well defined by the courts, some degree
of Federal participation in the assessment process is critical to ju-
dicial approval of a negative declaration; EPA has successfully defended
actions attacking the lack of an EIS in part by producing evidence of
substantial Federal participation in the assessment preparation pro-
cess. ]_/  Concerning preparation of the EIS itself, EPA has no history
of litigation on the issue of delegation of EIS preparation responsi-
bility to grantees or their contractors; indeed, virtually all EIS's
so far completed have been prepared by EPA itself, or by its contractors.
Obviously, delegation to a non-Federal level of substantial responsi-
bility for preparation of the preliminary decision document—the environ-
mental assessment--is of less moment than similar delegation of respon-
sibility for the final decision document (the EIS).  Numerous Federal
agencies other than EPA have been involved in litigation on this issue.
The result has been a conflict in decisions, with the majority view
permitting some delegation of EIS preparation responsibility. 2J  In no
case, however, has a court suggested that a Federal agency may so com-
pletely abdicate its responsibilities for EIS preparation under NEPA
as to become a "rubber stamp" for documents prepared by or for grantee
agencies.  The Federal agency is required to exercise active participa-
tion in the EIS preparation and review process.  The following discuss-
ion from Life of the Land v.  Brinegar 3/ is instructive (the case involved
an attack on an EIS prepared by a consultant for a State airport agency
under a grant from the Federal Aviation Agency):

     "Appellees [the Federal  defendants below] concede that under
     NEPA, the applicable federal agency must bear the responsibility
     for the ultimate work product designed to satisfy the require-
     \j  North Amherst Residents for Positive Action v.. Train, USDC, W.D.N.Y.,
C.A. 74-289, August 7, 1974; Edward M. Herbert v.  USEPA. USDC, N.D.  Ohio,
C 74-135, November 15, 1974.

     2J  Cases upholding delegation: Sierra Club v.  Lynn, 502 F2d 43 (5th
Cir., 1974); Movement Against Destruction v.  Volpe,  500 F2d 29 (4th  Cir.,
1974); Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality v.  Volpe, 487 F2d 849 (8th
Cir., 1973); Life of the Land v. Brinegar, 485 F2d 460~(9th Cir., 1973)
cert den 414 U.S. 1052 (1973); Finish All'atoona' s  Interstate Right v. Brinegar,
484 F2d 638 (5th Cir., 1973); Citizens Environmental Council v.  Volpe, 484
F2d 870 (10th Cir., 1973 cert den   U.S.  , 94 S.  Ct. 1935 (1974); Nat'l
Forest Preservation Group v. Volpe, 352 F Supp 123 (D.  Mont., 1972).

     Cases holding against delegation: Conservation  Society of Vermont v.
Sect'y of Transportation, 508 F2d 927 (2d Cir., 1974);  Greene County Planning
Board v. FPC, 455 F2d 412 (2d Cir., 1972) cert den 409  U.S. 841  (1972).

     3/  485 F2d 460 (9th Cir.,  1973) cert den 414 U.S. 1052 (1973).
-------
     ment of section 102(2)(C).   We find no departure from this
     requirement here.   The  record indicates that [FAA] officials
     actively participated in all phases of the EIS preparation
     process.  The chief of  the  Airport.Division of the ... Agency's
     Pacific Region testified that he assisted with the preparation
     from its early stages onward.  He stated that, as part of the
     preparation, regular meetings with other federal officials,
     State of Hawaii officials,  as well as the [consultant's]
     representatives, were held.  Further, an employee of [the
     consultant] testified as to the active involvement of the [FAA]
     in the EIS preparation  process.  [He] concluded that the EIS
     'was more or less a joint -effort by [the consultant], the State
     and the F.A.A.'

     "The record further reveals that federal officials in Washington,
     upon receipt of the EIS, continued active examination thereof.

     "We agree with the district court's conclusion that 'the evidence
     shows that F.A.A.  officials did in fact work together with state
     officials and a private contractor and gave it close attention.'"
     485 F2d 460, 467.

In Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Volpe, 4/ the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (serving 8 midwestern states) appeared to
approve a slightly more passive  role for the Federal Highway Administra-
tion, citing Life of the Land v. Brinegar, supra:

     "The district court, upon the basis of substantial evidence,
     specifically found that the FHWA recommended changes in the
     initial statement and provided additional information to be
     added to the final statement.  Review, modification and adop-
     tion by the FHWA of the statement as its own occurred in this
     case.  Such extensive participation by the responsible federal
     agency would clearly distinguish this case from [contra decisions].
     In our present case, the federal agency did not 'abdicate a signi-
     ficant part of its responsibility' to the state highway commission
     by 'rubber stamping' or adopting an unaltered or incompletely
     reviewed environmental  impact statement."  487 F2d 849, 954.

     A much more conservative position has been taken in the Second
Circuit, where the court in Conservation Society of Vermont v. Secretary
of Transportation 57 has recently reiterated earlier precedent in that
     4/  487 F2d 849 (8th Cir., 1973 .

     5/  508 F2d 927 (2d Cir., 1974).
-------
circuit to the effect that nothing short of "genuine" federal partici-
pation is sufficient, although the Federal agency may "solicit and
integrate information from state agencies." _6/  One basis for this
position was as follows:

     "A state agency is established to pursue defined state goals.
     In attempting to secure federal approval  of a project, 'self-
     serving assumptions' may ineluctably color a state agency's
     presentation of the environmental data or influence its final
     recommendation.  Transposing the federal  duty to prepare the
     EIS to a state agency is thus unlikely tj> result in as dis-
     passionate an appraisal of environmental  considerations as the
     federal agency itself could produce."  508 F2d 927, 931.

     The Conservation Society case, as you know, has prompted several
proposed amendments to both NEPA and the Federal Aid Highway Act designed
to mitigate the anti-delegation impact of the case.  FHWA has sought
certiorari to the Second Circuit, and the U. S. Supreme Court may yet
resolve the delegation issue.

     The Second Circuit decision directly involves only highway projects,
and is applicable only to those in the States of Vermont, Connecticut
and New York.  Given contra decisions in five other circuits, we believe
"piggybacking" may be implemented outside the Second Circuit without
substantial  risk of loss in litigation, assuming that (a) Federal
personnel  will be actively involved on an ongoing basis in review of,
and appropriate assistance in, preparation of each "piggyback" EIS, in
accordance with the discussion in Life of the Land v.  Brinegar, above;
and (b) that "piggybacking" will not result in elimination or prepara-
tion of EIS's following the regular preparation and review of assess-
ments pursuant to 40 CFR, Part 6.  In Regions I and II, for the three
states directly subject to the Second Circuit decision, it is clear
that greater caution and a more active Federal role in "piggybacking,"
and EIS development'and review generally, is required in order to lessen
the risk of successful attack on EIS's prepared there.

Use of separate consultant for "piggyback" EIS preparation

     While not required as a matter of law, use of a separate consultant
for EIS preparation would appear to partially defuse the Second Circuit's
concern for "dispassionate appraisal," and thus mitigate—though not
eliminate—the need for Federal involvement in development of each EIS.
Indeed, we encourage the use of a second consultant wherever appropriate,
and we understand that you propose to encourage this.   Although the need
for a second consultant may not be as strongly felt outside Regions I  and
II, in terms of a response to specific legal precedent, the procedure
     6/  Id., p. 932-33.
-------
would probably provide an extra safeguard  of impartiality  in  the  EIS
preparation process which could be favorable to  the  Government's
defense in the event suit is filed.   Use of the  second  consultant
may arguably offset the decreased Federal  profile  in the EIS  develop-
ment process which derives from "piggybacking."

     As your office noted (with our concurrence) concerning use of
contractors for EIS preparation in the NPDES New Source Permit Program,
the court in Life of the Land v.  Brinegar, supra,  specifically approved
of EIS preparation by a consultant contractor of the grantee  agency.*
This was so even though the particular consultant  involved had a
"follow-on" financial interest"in construction of  the project.  485  F2d
460, 467 (Whether this position would be consistently adopted in  other
courts is open to conjecture).  That case  provides some legal precedent
for use of a single consultant to prepare  both the Step 1  facilities
plan and the EIS under a construction grant; nonetheless,  the better
approach is to use a second, separate consultant for EIS preparation. 7/

     The grantee's contractual relationship with the EIS contractor  is
a highly effective means of assuring adequate use  of the grantee's
particular and localized knowledge of the  project, and of  implementing
the grantee's own derivative responsibilities under NEPA.   At the same
time, EPA legally must maintain a federal  presence in the  EIS prepara-
tion process consistent with the discussion above, and therefore  must
require that the grantee assure EPA's access to  all  ElS-related activ-
ities of the contractor and the grantee.  To avoid later confusion
concerning the roles of the respective parties,  we have suggested that
you require each grantee to include substantially  the following language
in each "piggyback" contract:

     "This contract is funded in part with funds made available under
     a grant from the U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  This
     contract is subject to regulations contained  in 40 CFR,  Sub-
     chapter B and particularly  §35.937-9.  Neither the  United
     States nor the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency  is  a  party
     to this contract."

Relationship to 40 CFR, Part 6

     We suspect that "piggybacking" may involve  incidents  of  technical
noncompliance with regulations set forth in 40 CFR, Part  6.   EPA  must
be particularly sensitive to such violations, given the decisions of
the Comptroller General of the U. S. in Decisions  No. B-181015, dated
      7_/   We  note that the hiring by the grantee of a separate consultant
 to  conduct EIS  preparation independently of the grantee's consultant
 responsible  for the  balance of Step 1 or Step 2 work appears quite
 similar  to the  process  suggested for "Value Engineering" suggested in
 Mr.  Cahill's Program Guidance Memorandum No. 45,- dated December 11, 1974,
 and  is equally  well  justified.

      *See attached memorandum  from  OFA dated May 15,  1975.
-------
December 23, 1974.   In response to a complaint of violation of certain
provisions of 40 CFR, Part 6 on a construction grant project in Region
III, he found that "...  there is no indication on the record that EPA
complied with its regulations implementing [NEPA] ... we recommend that
action be taken to insure future compliance with the regulations."  We
believe that "piggybacking" is a lawful  implementation of NEPA if pro-
perly administered, and that it appears  to adequately reflect the spirit
of our regulations.  Because of the recent decision of the Comptroller
General, however, we suggest that the "Piggyback" package distributed
to the regions note that the procedure is being implemented on a trial
basis, and that if successful, it will be incorporated in regulations.
-------
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

          Legality of EIS Preparation by a Third
   ;JECT:  Party Contractor Under the NPDES New Source           DATE. ..
          Permit Program                                            ' w 15 1975

 FROM:    AH


 TO:       Mr. John White
          Deputy Regional Administrator
          Region IV, Atlanta


               In response to your recent inquiry regarding the Louisville
          Gas and Electric Company's new source permit,  we feel that third
          party contractors may be used in EIS preparation under the new
          source program under certain conditions.  First, the contractor
          must not stand to gain financially if the permit was issued and,
          second, EPA must provide guidance, participate in the EIS  prepa-
          ration process and independently evaluate the  EIS prior to its
          approval and adoption.

               Except for one case, the court decisions  on EIS delegation
          to applicants do not involve preparation by contractors.   However,
          the opinions of the U.S.  Circuit Courts of Appeals have stood  for
          one over-riding principle, i.e., the Federal agency has sufficient
          flexibility in the NEPA process to solicit and integrate information
          gathered by applicants for Federal aid as long as the Federal
          agency independently evaluates the data and prepares the statement.
          This view was first enunciated by the second circuit in Greene
          County Planning Board v EPC, 455 F2d 412 [2nd-Cir., 1972J  and  has
          been incorporated into section 1500.7(c) of the CEQ guidelines.
          This approach has been followed by several circuits involving  the
          delegation of EIS preparation activities by the U.S. Department
          of Transportation.  The 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits have
          carefully scrutinized the degree of Federal involvement in the
          EIS process and have only approved delegation  of EIS preparation
          activities where DOT had extensively reviewed  and analyzed the
          data gathered by the applicant.  Most recently, the Second Circuit
          Court of Appeals in Conservation Society v Secretary of Transportation,
          7 ERC 1236 [2nd Cir., Dec. 11, 1974] disapproved an EIS written
          by the Vermont Highway Department with insufficient Federal
          involvement
EPA fi»rm 1320-6 (ffcv. 6-72)
-------
     The one opinion involving EIS preparation by a third party
contractor, Life of the Land v Brinegar 485 F2d 460 [9th Cir.,
1973] upheld such delegation despite the apparent danger of a
self-serving EIS.  A consultant to the Hawaii Department of
Transportation had prepared much of the EIS on a proposed FAA
grant for runway construction.  Even though the consulting firm
stood to gain substantially from further additional contracts  if
the runway were approved, the court "found nothing in NEPA or  the
case law which precludes a firm with a financial interest in the
project from assisting with EIS preparation."  The court further
found the EIS preparation to be "more or less a joint effort with
significant Federal agency participation."

     This case apparently differs from the rationale of the other
circuits in that the contractor's financial interest in the
project's completion clearly created the possibility of a self-
serving EIS.  Thus, the majority of circuits if confronted with a
similar factual situation would probably require contractors who
do not have a later financial stake in a project as well as
independent Federal guidance and evaluation in the process in
order to achieve the goal stated in previous opinions, i.e., an
unbiased, objective decision by the Federal agency.

     EPA's use of contractors for EIS preparation under the NPDES
program would have to ensure objectivity through careful Federal
supervision in order to comply with the majority view.  A proposed
addition to the proposed NEPA regulation for new source NPDES
permits would presumably ensure this objectivity:

      "If the NS/EQ [New Source/Environmental Quest!onaire] reveals
      that the preparation of an environmental impact statement is
      required, which necessitates the development of data and infor-
      mation which will result in substantial expense to the United
      States, the [responsible official] may require reports,  data and
      other information for the EIS to be compiled by a third  party
      under contract with the applicant and furnished directly to the
      [responsible official].  In such cases, the [responsible official]
      shall approve the selection of this third party contractor after
      consulting with interested Federal, State, and local agencies,
      public interest groups, and members of the general public, as he
      deems appropriate to assure objectivity in this selection.  The
      [responsible official] shall specify the type of information to
      be developed and shall maintain control of the project throughout
      the gathering and presentation of this information."  [Proposed
      to be inserted as subsection (d) of section 6.908 "Procedures for
      Environmental Review.]
-------
                             -3-
     Before you commence action concerning the Louisville Gas and
Electric Company's new source NPDES permit, you must ensure that
the spirit of the proposed addition has been carried out to be in
accord with NEPA.  The third party contractor would have to be
selected objectively and should not have any future financial
interest in the project.  EPA would have to exercise strict
control over his activities to ensure that the data developed and
alternatives considered are independently evaluated.  This approach
would comply with the intent of NEPA, as interpreted by the
majority s£-courts, i.e., . . . to ensure an objective Federal
evaluation of a proposed action.

     Please be advised that the Office of General  Counsel has
concurred in this response.
                              Sheldon Meyers
                              Director
                              Office of Federal  Activities
-------
JS&!
       \
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%PR0^&<
-------
Special attention should be paid to:two areas of the grants process, the
development of priority lists and hearings on facility plans, to deter-
mine whether action is necessary to prevent Title VI violations.  The
following steps should be taken:

     !•   Review of Priority System

          The Regional Administrator shall review each state project
     priority system and each annual project priority list to discover
     whether priority lists are being developed which regularly rank
     projects serving predominantly minority populations lower than
     comparable projects serving non-minority populations. EPA water
     quality strategy priorities presently place collection system
     projects fourth.  However, our current policy allows States to
     raise collection system projects to a higher priority when such
     projects are necessary to remedy particular pollution problems,
     including when such a change is necessary to correct a pollution
     problem combined with an existing racially discriminatory situation
     so that Title VI requirements are met.  States must follow EPA
     priorities in structuring their priority systems and in developing
     their annual project lists.  When the failure of a State to follow
     EPA policies in structuring its priority list results in a racially
     discriminatory situation, the Regional Administrator must take
     appropriate action to bring identified problem priority systems
     into accord with EPA priority system criteria and Title VI require-
     ments.

     II.  Public Hearing on Priority List

          The Title VI requirements should be discussed at the public
     hearing required prior to approval of the annual project priority
     list and comments solicited as to potential Title VI violations.
     Specifically, "information should be requested as to minority areas
     which desire to be served by grants projects listed on the priority
     list and which evidence a willingness to accept the financial
     obligations which accrue to treatment facility users but feel  they
     will be denied the benefits because the projects do not provide for
     collection lines to serve those areas.  The Regional Administrator
     shall carefully evaluate the need for collection systems for those
     minority areas so identified at the public hearing.  When he deter-
     mines that the funding of collection systems to the minority areas
     is necessary to meet the requirements of Title VI and is in con-
     formance with EPA priority criteria and the approved state priority
     system, he shall withhold approval of the state priority list until
     it can be modified to comply with Title VI.
-------
III. Public Hearings on Facility Plans

     The Title VI requirements should also be discussed at public
hearings held prior to approva.1 of each facility plan and other
grants projects where a reasonable possibility exists such re-
quirements may be contravened. The Regional Administrator shall
determine by such hearings whether any minority areas exist which
desire to be served by the project and which evidence a willingness
to accept the financial obligations which accrue to treatment
facility users but which will not be served because the project
will not provide collection lines to those areas.

     The Regional Administrator, if he determines such minority
areas exist, shall evaluate and compare the following considera-
tions in determining what action to take on a facility plan or
other grants project;

     1.  the need for collection lines for the minority area from a
     pollution control or public health standpoint,

     2.  the ranking such a collection line project would receive
     on the state project priority list, applying existing Federal
     and state priority criteria,

     3.  existing or past patterns of discrimination which would
     tend to deny the benefits of the project to minority areas in
     the grantee community,

     4.  the extent to which minority residents will be denied the
     benefits of the proposed project on the basis of race, color
     or national origin should the propose'd project be constructed,

     5.  the cost and engineering feasibility of constructing
     collection lines in the unsewered minority areas,

     6.  the cost-effectiveness of adding a collection line element
     to the proposed project.

IV.  Possible Actions to be Taken

     The Regional Administrator shall take into account both the
requirements of P.L. 92-500 and of Title VI in making a final
decision on the project.   Appropriate actions, based on the above
considerations, may include;

     1.  withhold approval of the proposed project until  the grantee
     takes steps to sewer the minority area,

     2.  approval of a modified project which will  provide service
     to minority areas,

     3.  approval of the project as originally proposed.
-------
*    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                     WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                                 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-33
                                 Program Guidance Memorandum PG-60
                         11 AUG 1975
 SUBJECT:    Discount  Rate

 FROM:       Harold  P.  Cahill,  Jr.,  Director  gk
            Municipal  Construction  Division  (WH-547)

 TO:         Regional  Water  Division Directors
      Enclosed is  a  copy of the  notice of  the  new discount rate of 6 1/8
 percent as published  by the Water  Resources Council   The new rate is to
 be used in all  new  facility planning starts.  Cost-effective analyses
 performed for the first time on projects  are  to be  based on the  present
 Water Resources Council  rate of 6  1/8 percent.

      We have arranged to distribute the enclosed information to  con-
 sulting engineers through the "Construction Grants  Newsletter" and
 through the newsletter of the Consulting  Engineers  Council.  Please
 distribute copies of  this information to  the  States for use in their
 programs.

 Enclosure
-------
                                  ,<^-~>;  r- ''
          i- : 1   i  ; . ;i ; \    \\
          l.i i.i  ;.i  U   ^v.:>'
           . IVafe^ Rcs-ti-rces Council,  2120 L Street, N.I/V.,  Washington, D.C. 20037
                             July 25,  1975
 ,:
 FPC
 H:-:W
 DOT

CCMM
 EPA
 HUD
VJcrren D. Fairchild
L;:ac2 Karston
(,\'illic7i 3. Davcy
J. W. Mori-is
George G. Adidas
Paul S. Cromwell
William R. Fiedel

Donald R. Baker
Albert J. Erickson
Truman Coins
AWRBIAC
    CEO
   DRuC
   CLBC
   JUST
   MRBC
  NERBC
    OHS
   OR3C
  PNRBC
  PSIAC
 SE3IAC
   SRBC
    TVA
  UMRBC
John G. Wbite
Robert Srjythe
Thomas F. Sch^eigert
Frederick 0. Rouse
Walter J. Kiechel
John W. Kcuberger
R. Frank Gregg
Thomas i\". Barry
Fred El. Morr
lionel J. Lane
Webster Otis
Clair P. Guess
Thomas C. H. Webster
L'.dwcrd H. Lese^ne
Gccrge W. Griebenov:
 Subject:  Discount Rate and Water Supply Act of 1958 Interest Rate

 The interest rate to be used by Federal agencies in the formulation
.and evaluation of plans for water and related land resources is 6  1/8
 percent for the period July  1,  1975 through and including June 30,
 1976.  Attached for your use and information is the  notice of change
 in the discount rate sent to the "Federal Register" July 24,  1975.

 The interest rate determined in accordance with the provisions of
 Section 301 (b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 is 5. 116 percent,
 which if adjusted to the nearest 1/8 of 1 percent is 5 1/8 percent.
                                   Warren D. Fairchild
                                   Director
                                                               /
 Attachment
-------
                           United States
                     Water Resources Council
                Principles and Standards for Planning
                 Water and Related .Land Resources
                       Change in Discount Rate


Notice is hereby given that the interest rate to be used by Federal

agencies in the formulation and evaluation of plans  for water and

related land resources is 6 1/8 percent for the period July 1, 1975,

through and including June 30, 1976.


The rate has  been computed in accordance with Chapter IV, D. ,

"The Discount Rate" in the "Standards for Planning Water and

Related Land Resources" of the Water Resources Council, as amended

(39 FR 29242),  and is to be used by all Federal agencies in plan

formulation and evaluation of water and related land resources

projects for the purpose of discounting future benefits and computing

costs,  or otherwise converting benefits and costs to a common time

basis.


The Department of the Treasury on July 17,  1975,  informed the Water

Resources Council pursuant to Chapter IV, D. , (b) that the interest

rate would be seven percent based upon the formula set forth in

Chapter IV, D. , (a):  " * * * the average  yield during the preceding Fiscal

Year on interest-bearing marketable securities of  the United States
-------
which, at the time the compute: Jinn if> made, have terms of. 15 years

or more remaining to maturity r-': * #, "  However,  Chapter IV,  .O- > (

further provides  " * * * [tjhat in no event shall the rate be raised or

lowered more than one-quarter clone percent for any year. "  Since

the rate in Fiscal Year 1975 war, 5 7/8 percent (39 FPv 29242),  the

rate for Fiscal Yeai  1976 is 6  1/8 percent.
                                  Warren D. Fairchild
                                  Director
-------
 \
 *    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
°                      WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460

                                                           i -e
                                PROGRAM  REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM  PRM NO. 75-34
                                Program  Guidance Memorandum PG-61
  SUBJECT:   Grants for Treatment and Control  of  Combined  Sewer  Overflows
            and Stormwater Discharges
  FROM:     John T.  Rhett,  Deputy Assistant Administrator
            for Water Program Operations  (WH-546)

  TO:       Regional  Administrators
            Regions  I - X


       This memorandum summarizes the Agency's  policy on  the  use of  con-
  struction grants for treatment and control  of combined  sewer overflows
  and Stormwater discharges during wet-weather  conditions.  The purpose is
  to assure that projects are funded only when  careful  planning has  demon-
  strated they are cost-effective.

  I.   Combined Sewer Overflows

       A.   Background

       The costs and benefits of control  of various  portions  of pollution
  due to combined sewer overflows and by-passes vary greatly  with the
  characteristics of the sewer and treatment system, the  duration, inten-
  sity, frequency and areal extent of precipitation, the  type and extent
  of development in  the service  area, and the characteristics, uses  and
  water quality standards of the receiving waters.   Decisions on grants
  for control of combined sewer  overflows, therefore, must  be made on  a
  case-by-case basis after  detailed  planning at the  local level.

       Where detailed planning has been completed, treatment  or control of
  pollution from wet-weather overflows and bypasses  may be  given priority
  for construction grant funds only  after provision  has been  made for  sec-
  ondary treatment of dry-weather flows in the  area.  The detailed planning
  requirements and criteria for  project approval follow.

       B.   Planning Requirements

       Construction  grants  may be approved for  control  of pollution  from
  combined sewer overflows  only  if planning for the  project has thoroughly
  analyzed for the 20 year  planning  period:
-------
     1.  Alternative control techniques which might be utilized to
     attain various levels of pollution control (related to alternative
     beneficial uses, if appropriate), including at least initial con-
     sideration of all the alternatives described in the section on
     combined sewer and stormwater control in "Alternative Waste Manage-
     ment Techniques and Best Practicable Waste Treatment" (Section C
     of Chapter III of the information proposed for comment in March 1974),

     2.  The costs of achieving the various levels of pollution control
     by each of the techniques appearing to be the most feasible and
     cost-effective after the preliminary analysis.

     3.  The benefits to the receiving waters of a range of levels of
     pollution control during wet-weather conditions.  This analysis
     will normally be conducted as part of State water quality manage-
     ment planning, 208 areawide management planning, or other State,
     regional or local planning effort.

     4.  The costs and benefits of addition of advanced waste treatment
     processes to dry-weather flows in the area.

     C.   Criteria for Project Approval

     The final alternative selected shall meet the following criteria:

     1.  The analysis required above has demonstrated that the level of
     pollution control provided will be necessary to protect a beneficial
     use of the receiving water even after technology based standards
     required by Section 301 of P.L. 92-500 are achieved by industrial
     point sources and at least secondary treatment is achieved for dry-
     weather municipal flows in the area.

     2.  Provision has already been made for funding of secondary treat-
     ment of dry-weather flows in the area.

     3.  The pollution control technique proposed for combined sewer
     overflow is a more cost-effective means of protecting the beneficial
     use of the receiving waters than other combined sewer pollution
     control techniques and the addition of treatment higher than sec-
     ondary treatment for dry-weather municipal flows in the area.

     4.  The marginal costs are not substantial compared to marginal
     benefits.

     Marginal costs and benefits for each alternative may be displayed
graphically to assist with determining a project's acceptability under
this criterion.  Dollar costs should be compared with quantified pollu-
tion reduction and water quality improvements.   A descriptive narrative
should also be included analyzing monetary, social and environmental
costs compared to benefits, particularly the significance of the bene-
ficial uses to be protected by the project.
-------
II.  Stormwater Discharges

     Approaches for reducing pollution from separate Stormwater dis-
charges are now in the early stages of development and evaluation.  We
anticipate, however, that in many cases the benefits obtained by con-
struction of treatment works for this purpose will be small compared
with the costs, and other techniques of control and prevention will be
more cost-effective.  The policy of the Agency is, therefore, that
construction grants shall not be used for construction of treatment
works to control pollution from separate discharges of Stormwater except
under unusual conditions where the project clearly has been demonstrated
to meet the planning requirements and criteria described above for
combined sewer overflows.

III. Multi-purpose Projects

     Projects with multiple purposes, such as flood control and recrea-
tion in addition to pollution control, may be eligible for an amount not
to exceed the cost of the most cost-effective single purpose pollution
abatement system.  Normally the Separable Costs-Remaining Benefits
(SCRB) method should be used to allocate costs between pollution control
and other purposes, although in unusual cases another method may be
appropriate.  For such cost allocation, the cost of the least cost
pollution abatement alternative may be used as a substitute measure of
the benefits for that purpose.  The method is described in "Proposed
Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects," GPO, Washington,
D. C., 1958, and "Efficiency in Government through Systems Analysis," by
Roland N. McKean, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

     Enlargement of or otherwise adding to combined sewer conveyance
systems is one means of reducing or eliminating flooding caused by wet-
weather conditions.  These additions may be designed so as to produce
some benefits in terms of reduced discharge of pollutants to surrounding
waterways.  The pollution control benefits of such flood control measures,
however, are likely to be small compared with the costs, and the measures
therefore would normally be ineligible for funding under the construction
grants program.

     All multi-purpose projects where less than 100% of the costs are
eligible for construction grants under this policy shall contain a
special grant condition precluding EPA funding of non-pollution control
elements. This condition should, as a minimum, contain a provision
similar to the following:

     "The grantee explicitly acknowledges and agrees that costs
     are allowable only to the extent they are incurred for the
     water pollution control elements of this project."

     Additional special conditions should be included as appropriate to
assure that the grantee clearly understands which elements of the proj-
ect are eligible for construction grants under Public Law 92-500.
-------
/ ^£2- \
        '   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\.   t
-------
     As a minimum, the portion of construction cost allocable to the Federal
facility should be based on the ratio of its total  hydraulic requirements,
including allowances for future needs, to the total design flow of the treat-
ment works.  The portion (percentage) allocable to  the Federal  facility must
be agreed upon by the municipality and Federal agency, and approved by EPA
prior to award of a Step 2 or Step 3 grant, whichever is applicable, for the
works or any portion thereof.

     As an example, in a $10,000,000 actual construction project for which
the Federal facility share has been agreed upon as  20 percent of the total
project cost, the allowable cost and construction grant funding would be as
follows;

     Total joint project cost                        $10,000,000

     Federal facility share                            2.000,000 (20%)

     Maximum allowable cost                          $ 8,000,000

           Grant                                     	0.75 (75%)

           EPA grant funding                         $ 6,000,000

III.  OPTIONAL PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR FEDERAL FACILITY COST SHARE

     The EPA grantee may negotiate a payment schedule for the Federal
facility share with the concerned Federal, agency.  If payments are not
possible on a timely basis, a possible option is for the grantee to finance,
through bonds or a bank loan, the Federal facility cost share over an
agreed upon number of years and     accept periodic payments of principal
and interest.  Payments would be provided for in 10-year renewable utility
contracts which are authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act.  Other payment options may be possible, depending upon the
local situation.

IV.  COST SHARING ASSURANCES

     The EPA grantee should provide assurances satisfactory to EPA as part
of the Step 2 grant application (or Step 3 if the Step 2 grant was awarded
prior to the effective date of this guidance) that:

     1.  the Federal facility cost share has been determined as required
         herein,

     2.  the Federal facility cost share has been deducted from the grant
         eligible costs, and

     3.  funds comprising the local plus Federal facility cost shares
         will be provided as needed to meet design  and construction
         payment schedules.
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                                         2 o r
SUBJECT:   DOD  Participation in Regional Wastewater
          Treatment Projects
FROM:     Harold P. Cahill,
          Municipal Construction Di
TO:       Regional Water Division Directors
          Regional Water Branch Chiefs
              Note that the attached memorandum on DOD Participation in Regional
         Wastewater Treatment Projects should be filed with  Program Guidance
         Memorandum No. 62.

         Enclosure
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
                    ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
                            WASHINGTON. D. C. 2O3O1
                                                           28 JAN 1976
 HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
        MEMORANDUM FOR Deputy for Environmental Affairs,  OASA(CW)
                             Special Assistant to ASN(I&L)
                             Special Assistant for Environmental Quality,
                                SAF/ILE

        SUBJECT:  DoD Participation in Regional Wastewater Treatment
                   Projects
       In my letter of 23 December 1975, I enclosed a letter from the
       Office of Management and Budget which forwarded policy guidance
       on the manner in which the financing for the DoD portion of capital
       costs of joint projects would be computed and furnished.  Essentially,
       the policy  disallows the capital costs  attributable to the  DoD share
       when computing the amount of EPA construction grant funding to be
       provided.  This means that the DoD share' of joint facilities will be
       appropriated through normal processes, just as if the installation
       had gone it alone.

       The enclosed letter from EPA indicates that-there is guidance  to the
       field that should be modified to reflect the recent OMB decision
       •mentioned above.  I am  confident that we  can resolve many of the
       present  impasses by indicating to regional and municipal representatives
       our willingness to participate when economically feasible, while
       pointing out the appropriations time lag and the attendant statutory
       limitations on the contracting process.  Their appreciation of these
       problems should help all parties to arrive at mutually agreeable
       solution^.

       While I recognize that, in some cases, our share of capital costs has
       escalated for various reasons to levels far al>o>ve the estimated cost of
       constructing DoD treatment facilities,  future decisions tp participate
       in joint facilities must be based on sound economic assessments gained
       through  continual participation in the planning processes.
-------
I am responding to EPA to assure them that our policies will be
revised to rectify the previous misunderstandings, and that the DoD
intends to pay for its  share of capital costs of joint facilities.  I will
also ask them to initiate appropriate revisions to 40 CFR 35 to
clarify those portions of subpart E that have led to much of our
difficulties.

A copy of your implementing guidance should be furnished to this
office.
                                 George Marienthal
                       Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
                               (Environmental Quality)
Enclosure
-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                      PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM  PRM NO.  75-36
                                      Program Guidance Memorandum PG 63
SUHJKCI     Value  Engineering  in the EPA Construction Grants Prqoffp.


rwoM:       John T-  Rhett,  Deputy Assistant Administrator
            for Water  Program  Operations (WH-546)

TQ.         All  Regional Administrators
            Attn:   Director, Water Program Division

            I.   Purpose

                The purpose of this program  guidance memorandum  is  to:

                1.   Provide interim policy on  the use  of  value engineering
            (VE) in the EPA construction grant  program;

                2.   Provide the schedule of  a  mandatory VE  program.

                3.   Update the information on  the EPA/VE  program contained
            in PGM No. 45  (December  11,  1974).   This program guidance memo-
            randum supersedes  PGM No.  45.

            II. Policy

                 1.   Value Engineering analysis proposed by  a grant  applicant
            is grant eligible  when written approval is  issued by  the Regional
            Administrator  prior to  the VE analysis.

                2.   The grant eligibility of the VE fee is  limited  to  the
            actual VE analysis of  the  project.   The applicant may incorporate
            training as part  of the  proposed  VE workshop.   However,  the
            intention must be  so stated in the proposal, and all  costs  asso-
            ciated with such  training  must be computed  separately.   For
            example, the cost  for  a  VE instructor, additional time and  room
            space, etc., must  be itemized and separately identified  for
            training.  These  additional  costs for training are  not grant
            eligible.

                 3.  The additional  engineering fee for any significant
            redesign to implement  an accepted VE recommendation is grant
            eligible when approved  by  the Regional Administrator  prior  to the
            redesign.
 EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
III.   VE - Definition

     VE is a specialized technique for controlling cost.   The
technique is based on a systematic and creative approach  which
incorporates the following key characteristics.

     1.  VE analysis is performed by a multidisciplinary  team of
design professionals guided by a VE coordinator;

     2.  the VE team evaluates cost and function relationships;

     3.  the VE team identifies and focuses on high cost  areas;

     4.  the VE technique includes a creative session to  ensure
generation of alternatives;

     5.  cost savings are accomplished without sacrificing quality
or reliability of the project;

     6.  the VE team makes recommendations to the original designer
and owner.

IV.  Background

     To ensure that the Nation's resources are wisely used, PL
92-500 and the EPA Construction Grant Regulations emphasize the
cost-effectiveness approach.  However, the existing cost-effectivenesF
program focuses primarily on the Step 1 grant process.  It is
essential that cost control be extended whenever it 1s appropriate
and practical to do so.

     In 1974, a voluntary VE program was introduced for application
in the Step II grant process.  As a result, EPA construction
grant projects have been subjected to VE analysis under actual
grant conditions.  Results from these VE projects indicate:

     1.  VE is effective for cost control in water pollution
control projects;

     2.  cost savings have been substantial in all cases  completed
to date;

     3.  project delays can be prevented when the VE program is
properly managed;

     4.  quality and reliability of the project are maintained;

     5.  VE is beneficial to project designers in terms of more
efficient and better design techniques.
-------
     In view of the results of the voluntary program,  the use of
VE should be encouraged and extended to include as many projects
as practicable.

V.  Procedure

A.  Content of the VE proposal

     For those projects where a VE analysis will be performed,
the applicant must submit for approval  through the State to the
Regional Administrator, a VE analysis proposal as part of the
Step II grant application, or as an add-on where the Step II
grant has already been awarded.  This proposal should Include the
following information.

     1.  Scope of the VE analysis - Normally, the VE analysis
should be applicable to all components  and systems, including
treatment process selection.  The only  exception is that the
legal or regulatory requirements (such  as permit discharge
limitations) are not to be modified by  the VE process.  If the
applicant wishes to limit the scope, he must so state and provide
justification in the proposal.

     2-  VE team - The applicant should provide brief information
on the professional background and experience (with emphasis on
VE) of each team member and team coordinator (see section VI).

     3.  Level of VE effort - Depending on the size and complexity
of the project, the VE effort may vary  from one team and one
review session to multiple teams and/or multiple review sessions
in order to adequately review the project.  The applicant should
propose the appropriate VE effort to meet the need.  For example,
a large plant with advanced treatment processes may justify the
need for two or more VE teams.  Similarly, two separate studies
may be proposed. The first study would  be held when the design
stage (Step II) is approximately 20 percent - 30 percent complete
to review the treatment process, project design life, plant
layout, structural design, hydraulic capacity, etc.  The second
workshop would be held when the electrical and mechanical systems
design is ready to focus on these items.  For projects such as a
pumping station, interceptors, etc., a  small team will normally
be adequate.

     4.  VE fee - The applicant should  submit a detailed fee
schedule for conducting the VE analysis.  The fee schedule should
list the man-hour requirements for the  recommended level of
effort.  Manhour unit costs and overhead costs should also be
given.
-------
     5.  Timing - Proper management is  the  key  to  preventing  pro-
ject delays.   The applicant should carefully  schedule  the VE
analysis so that the VE and the progress  design can  proceed
concurrently.   A detailed VE schedule in  relation  to project
design and review should be included in the proposal.

B.  VE Summary Reports

    1.  Preliminary VE report - Upon completion of the VE analysis,
a report must be submitted to provide the following  information:

        - Scope of VE analysis

        - Basic VE methodology employed including  results for
          each phase (information, functional analysis, cost
          model, creativity, analysis of alternatives, and
          development).

        - Summary of VE recommendations

        - Estimated cost savings for each recommended  alternative

    2.  Final  VE report - A report describing final  implementation
of the VE recommendations must be submitted.   The  report is  to
include:

        - Accepted recommendations

        - Cost and schedule for implementing  the accepted  recommenda-
          tions

        - Rejected recommendations and reasons for the rejection

        - Net savings for both capital  costs  and total costs  over
          the planning period

C.  EPA Review and Approval

    1.  VE proposal - In order to prevent any delay, particularly
where the VE proposal is a part of Step II grant application, the
applicant should make every effort to ensure  that adequate  infor-
mation is included in the proposal.  When appropriate, the  Regional
Administrator may condition the grant so that design work  can
proceed.
-------
     2.  Implementation of VE recommendations  -  Upon  completion
of the VE analysis, recommendations will  be submitted by the VE
team to the applicant.  Normally, the applicant  and the project
designer will determine how the recommendations  can be implemented.
Results of such decisions will be submitted to the State and EPA
for review.  When it is determined that rejection of a VE recom-
mendation is unfounded, the Regional Administrator may, on the
basis of cost-effectiveness, request further explanation or
reconsideration of the rejected VE recommendation.

VI.  VE Team and Qualifications

     1.  Team Coordinator - In addition to demonstrated technical
and managerial capability, the team coordinator must have suc-
cessfully completed a 40 hour VE workshop conducted by an appropriate
organization such as the General Services Administration, the
American Institute of Architects, the American Consulting Engineers
Council, or an accredited university.  In addition to the academic
training requirement, some actual VE experience on a construction
project will be required.  Ideally, two actual VE experiences on
a construction project should be a minimum requirement for the VE
coordinator.  However, such a stringent requirement will not be
realistic at this time because VE is still new to most sanitary
engineering firms and therefore there may not be sufficient
qualified VE coordinators available to meet our needs. In view of
this, the Regional Administrator can prior to December 31, 1976,
approve the VE coordinator's qualifications based on the academic
training requirement only.

     2.  VE team members - They may or may not have VE back-
ground, however, they must be experienced design professionals in
their own field.  Size and composition of the team varies depending
on the type of project to be studied.  For a treatment plant, the
team may consist of an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer,
a civil/structural engineer, a sanitary engineer and a cost
estimator.

     3.  In-house VE capability - Some large design firms have
developed an in-house VE capability.  A proposal to use this
capability is acceptable, provided the designer certifies that
the team members have not actually been involved in any part of
the proposed project design except for VE analysis.
-------
VII.  VE Workshops and VE Project Review Sessions

     1.  Project review workshop - Normally,  a project review
conducted according to the basic VE job plan  (information,  func-
tional analysis, creativity, evaluation and development)  will
require approximately 40 hours of team effort.  Additionally,
pre-workshop preparation and post-workshop followup may take two
to four weeks total, depending on project size.

     2.  Training and actual project review workshop combined -
If the applicant wishes to incorporate training in the project
workshop, the intent must be stated in the initial proposal and
additional costs associated with training must be properly identi-
fied and computed separately.  Costs for training are not grant
eligible.  Normally, combined training and review workshops will
require more than 40 hours and adequate time  must be allocated to
project review.

VIII.  Mandatory VE Program

       In view of the magnitude of the EPA construction grant
program, and to ensure that more projects will receive the bene-
fits of VE review, a mandatory VE program based on the following
schedule is being developed.

     1.  After July 1, 1976, a VE proposal will be required in
all Step II grant applications with a total estimated project
construction cost of $10 million or greater.

     2.  For those projects where VE would not be mandatory, VE
participation is voluntary and is encouraged.

     3.  The mandatory VE analysis is applicable to Step II
grants only (i.e., preparation of plans and specifications).

IX.  VE Handbook and References

     A Value Engineering Handbook has been prepared and will be
made available to Regional Offices for distribution.  The Handbook
contains information pertaining primarily to  how to make a VE
proposal for an EPA project.  The Handbook does not contain
detailed instructions on how to accomplish a  VE study.  The
following references contain that type of information:

Dell'Isola, A.J.  Value Engineering in the Construction Industry.
  1st Edition.  New York.  Construction Publishing Co.  1973.
-------
GSA.  Design for Value.
GSA.  Value Engineering  Handbook.   PBS P8000.1
GSA.  Value Engineering  Workbook.
Gage, William L.  Value  Analysis.   New York - McGraw-Hill.  1967.
Martin Company.  Value Engineering Program.  Book II  - Cost Analysis.
  Self-Study Program.  1963.
Martin Company.  Value Engineering Program.  Book III - Functional
  Evaluation.  Self-Study Program.  1965.
Martin Company.  Value Engineering Program.  Book IV  - Creativity
  in Value Engineering.   Self-Study Program.  1965.
-------
    \
     *    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                               MAR  1 7  1976
                                    PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-37
                                        Program Guidance Memorandum
                                        PG-65
Subject:  User Charge System:  Plan and Schedule

From:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

To:       Regional Administrators
          ATTN:  Water Division Directors
     The purpose of this memorandum is to stress the importance of
implementing the regulation which requires the grantee to submit, with
his Step 2 application, a plan and schedule for the implementation of
his user charge system in sufficient detail to enable the Regional
Office to monitor developmental progress and to enforce schedule
compliance.

     Title II regulations (40 CFR 35.925-11), require the Regional
Administrator to determine, at the time of grant approval, that the
grantee has developed "...an approvable plan and schedule of implementation..."
for a system of user charges.  However, a recent GAO study found this
requirement to be inconsistently applied.  In some cases, implementation
schedules submitted by grantees were very brief, and consequently, the
Region lacked criteria needed to adequately monitor the grantee's progress.
Accordingly, the Comptroller General's report recommended that "...the
Agency require the submission of plans and schedules of implementation
from the grantees at the time of grant approval in sufficient detail  to
provide the Agency with enforceable schedules."

     Following receipt of this report, a copy of the Comptroller General's
letter was sent to the Regional Offices to alert them to the problem.
In addition, the section of the Construction Grant Handbook on User Charge
Systems was modified to include the following:

     "In the Step 2 application, the applicant must have developed
     an approvable plan and schedule for the implementation of a user
     charge system.  During the Step 3 grant activity, the applicant
     must show evidence of carrying out the implementation plan in
     accordance with that schedule."

     In brief, Regions are not to wait until the 50% payment point to
insure that "...the grantee has submitted adequate evidence of timely
-------
development of its system(s) of user charges."  (§35.935-13).   The
implementation schedule in the Step 2 application  should provide for
the timely submission of specific documents—such  as  resolutions
of system adoption from the grantee and communities in the project
service area, partially or fully drafted user charge  systems,  sewer
use ordinances, etc.--as concrete evidence of implementation progress.

     Also, steps should be taken in each Region to remind grantees of
a possible "Hold" on  payments at the 50% construction point before that
point is reached.  For example, the grantee's file could be checked when
a request for a 30% to 40% payment is submitted to determine if "...evidence
of timely development..." has been received.   If not, a letter reminding
the grantee of the requirement should be included  with that 30%-40%
payment so to obviate the need for delay at the 50% level.
-------
\m.
     o
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
                                   t-hU  9 ;'1976
                                   PROGRAM  REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-38
                                   Program  Guidance Memorandum PG-66
                                                             or rii i 01 WA \ i M AN: >
                                                             MA/AHDOHJS MM I RIAL S
      SUBJECT:  Relationship Between 201 Facility Planning and
                Water Quality Management (WQM)  Planning

      FROM:     Andrew W. Breidenbach,  Assistant
                for Water and Hazardous Material
                                             /
      TO:       Regional Administrators    PROGRAM GUIDANCE  MEMORANDUM
                Regions I - X               Construction Grants No.  66
                                            Water Quality Management SAM-1

      PURPOSE

           This policy statement describes the  relationships between  201
      facility planning and WQM planning under  Section 208 and  the minimum
      facility planning requirements which an initial WQM plan  must meet
      for EPA approval of the WQM plan.

           The purpose is to assure that facility plans  can be  completed and
      processed expeditiously through EPA approval during those periods when
      an initial WQM plan is either being prepared, approved, or implemented.
      A second purpose is to have initial WQM plans prepared that satisfy,
      at a minimum, certain requirements with respect to facility planning.
      As WQM planning requirements overlap with the 201  planning requirements,
      this policy seeks to minimize duplication and conflict between the two
      planning efforts.

           This policy statement supersedes the memo on  the same subject
      signed March 11, 1975, by James L. Agee (issued as construction grants
      program guidance memo number 47 and planning guidance memo AM-1).  Any
      other policy or guidance statements contrary to this policy are also
      superseded.  This policy statement applies to all  agencies (State and
      local) responsible for either 201 or WQM  planning.

      BACKGROUND

      201 Facility Planning

           Facility planning consists of the plans and studies  prerequisite
      to the award of grant assistance  for detailed design and  construction
      of publicly-owned treatment works. In the absence of a completed and
-------
                              — 2 —

approved WQM plan or approved interim outputs produced by the WQM
planning process, the facility plan must contain the following
elements:

     1.  Description of the planning area.

     2.  Selection of service areas.

     3.  Selection of overall treatment systems, including location,
         capacity and configuration of all  facilities, treatment
         levels, and preliminary identification of type of treatment
         and method of disposal of residual wastes.

     4.  Analysis supporting the selections in 2 and 3 based on
         identification, evaluation and cost-effective comparison
         of alternatives.

     5.  Preliminary designs and studies related to the selected
         wastewater treatment systems, including sewer evaluation
         surveys, surface and subsurface investigations of sites
         for proposed facilities, preliminary designs and detailed
         cost-effectiveness assessment, and other requirements set
         forth in Section 35.917-1 of the Title II regulations.

WQM Planning under Section 208

     WQM planning sets forth a comprehensive management program for
collection and treatment of wastes and controlling pollution from all
point and non-point sources.  Control measures for abating pollution
from these sources utilize a combination of traditional structural
measures together with land-use or land management practices and regu-
latory programs.  These measures are implemented by a management agency
or agencies designated in the plan.  An initial WQM plan is developed
over a prescribed planning period and, thereafter, updated and approved
annually.

POLICY: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 201 FACILITY PLANNING AND WQM PLANNING

I.  THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 201 AND WQM PLANNING IN THE SAME
GEOGRAPHIC AREA DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE FINAL EPA APPROVAL OF
A WQM PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:

     A.  201 Planning

     All 201 plans underway and on current  or subsequent approved
priority lists should proceed expeditiously through to completion,
State certification and approval by EPA. The scope of 201 planning
approved before, the final WQM work plan is  approved by EPA should
be at a level necessary to complete all required elements of the
facility plan.  The scope of 201 planning approved after the final
WQM work plan is approved by EPA should be  at a level necessary to
-------
                                - 3 -

supplement work assigned to and within the capability of the respon-
sible WQM planning agency to accomplish expeditiously so that a
complete facility plan can be provided with minimal delay.

     The WQM planning agency's review of ongoing facility plans
will generally be handled in accordance with procedures for the
A-95 review process.

     B. Minimum Requirements for Facility Planning by WQM
        Planning Agencies

     During the initial planning period, WQM planning agencies
must produce the interim outputs specified in Program Guidance
Memorandum AM-2; generally, for designated areawide agencies,
these interim outputs will be completed within 9 months of the
date upon which the planning process becomes operational as
selected by the Regional Administrator.  States conducting the
planning in non-designated areas may elect to place a lower
priority on facilities planning outputs, and, with the approval
of the Regional Administrator, may provide alternative schedules
to satisfy this interim output requirement.

     For those municipal facilities within the WQM planning area
expected to receive a construction grant award during the five
years following initial WQM plan approval, the initial WQM plan
will include the facility planning information listed below.  In
most cases, 201-funded facilities planning is either ongoing or
scheduled in the near term to support facilities construction over
the next several years.  Thus, WQM planning ageqcies are expected
during this period to utilize and incorporate (not duplicate) the
201-funded planning information, supplementing the 20i-funded or
programmed activities whenever deemed necessary by the Regional
Administrator.

     Minimum requirements for facility planning to be summarized in
initial WQM plans for any facilities expected to receive a construc-
tion grant award during the five years following initial WQM plan
approval:

1.  Selection of service areas

2.  Preliminary estimate of municipal wastewater flows to be
    generated during a 20 year planning period based on economic
    and population projections for the WQM planning area.

3.  Preliminary identification and comparison of the cost of
    alternative treatment systems needed to handle projected
    municipal wastewater flows, and to meet the requirements of
    BPWTT or any more stringent discharge limitation necessitated
    under the Act.  Cost estimates may be based on streamlined
    cost-estimating systems such as those prepared by Bechtel,
    Black and Veatch, and ICARUS.
-------
                                _ 4 -

4.  Preliminary comparison of the cost of alternative general
    configurations for needed wastewater  collection at the
    trunk line level.

5.  Overall summary of environmental impacts of alternative
    treatment and wastewater collection configurations.

6.  Preliminary determinations,  based on  the above analysis,
    of which municipal treatment systems  and conveyance
    configurations are likely to be most  cost-effective.

7.  Estimate of the land area required and possible financial
    arrangements which could be  utilized  to construct these
    facilities.

     The terms "preliminary", "summary" and "estimate" in this
description are used to emphasize that the WQM plan will  satisfy
these requirements by brief, general analysis and conclusions which
are much shorter and less detailed than those in a facility plan.
As such, these conclusions may be modified as a result of 201-funded
facility planning conducted in accordance with policies and procedures
described in Section II (see p.  5).

     WQM planning agencies are also required to meet statutory require-
ments which are normally not considered a part of the facility planning
process but which, after approval of the  WQM plan, will affect facility
planning.  Such requirements include establishment of priorities and
time schedules for completion of treatment works, estimation  of municipal
waste treatment system needs, identification of agencies  necessary to
construct, operate and maintain  treatment works,, and establishment of a
regulatory program that can affect facilities in the area (example -
stormwater or pretreatment controls).

     C. Detailed Facility Planning in WQM planning Work Plans

     New WQM planning work plans shall not be approved by the
Regional Administrator when they provide  for detailed facility
planning beyond the minimum requirements  in section B, above.
This detailed facility planning  shall be  handled by existing  and
subsequent 201 facility planning grants.

     Existing approved work plans for FY  74 and 75 designated 208
areawide agencies which provide  for facility planning beyond  the
minimum requirements should be amended to eliminate such  detailed
planning, except where designated WQM planning agencies have  already
contracted to conduct detailed facility planning and the  contractor
has started the work and is too  far along for the contract to be
revised or terminated as determined by the Regional Administrator.
If work plans are revised to eliminate detailed facility  planning,
Section 201 planning grants should be quickly provided in these areas
in accordance with paragraph A above.
-------
                              — 5 —

     D.  Interim 208 Outputs

     After interim outputs (AM-2) ate approved by the State and
EPA for a WQM planning area, the relationship between 201 and WQM
planning in that area will be the same as described above except
that planning under any 201 granUawarded after the approval of
the interim outputs must be consistent with these interim WQM
outputs.  The scope and funding of new 201 planning should not
extend to developing a justification for the interim outputs,
as this will have been produced by the WQM planning process.

     E.  Coordination Between Concurrent 201 and WQM Planning

     All WQM planning must be coordinated with facility planning
and other construction grant activity so that the final WQM plan
will facilitate needed construction in the area.  Each State,
working with the Regional office must assure that effective coor-
dination between concurrent 201 and WQM planning does occur, and
that relationships between the two planning efforts are consistent
with this policy statement.  The procedures for securing agreement
on relationships and responsibilities between concurrent 201 and
WQM  planning efforts are at the discretion of the State.  Conflicts
in approaches between concurrent 201 and WQM planning should be
resolved between the 201 and WQM planning agencies and concerned
State and local officials.

     F.  Transition to New WQM Requirements Affecting Facility
         Planning

     Any WQM plan which proposes a significant change in either
management or approach affecting construction grant awards must
allow adequate time and establish detailed procedures for transi-
tion to the new approach or management once the WQM plan is approved
by EPA.

II.  THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIES THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 201 AND WQM
PLANNING AFTER THE WQM PLAN HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND THE MANAGEMENT
AGENCY OR AGENCIES IDENTIFIED BY THE PLAN ARE APPROVED BY THE STATE
AND EPA.

     A.  Facility Plans Underway

     All facility plans underway at the time of approval will be
completed by the agency which received the Step 1 grant.  The
planning effort will continue expeditiously through to State
certification and EPA approval unless the approved WQM plan
clearly justifies a change in required treatment levels or alter-
native approach on the basis of substantially lower costs or major
changes in projected environmental impacts.
-------
                               - 6 -

     B.  New Facility Plans; Role of Designated jlanagement
         Agency(s)

     New grants for 201 plans will be made to the management
agency(s) designated in the approved WQM plan. New facility
planning will be consistent with the approved WQM plan.

     The scope and funding of new facility planning starts
should be sufficient to supplement the data and analysis in
the WQM plan to the extent necessary to provide a complete
facility plan as required by Section 35.917 of the Title II
regulations.

     Where future 201 planning results in recommended projects
not in general conformance with the recommendations of an
approved WQM plan, review of the proposed change  must be made
by the designated agency responsible for operating the continuing
WQM planning process.  If the proposed change is  accepted by the
WQM planning agency, the WQM plan is to be revised. (Revisions
will then proceed through the normal State certification and EPA
approval process.) If the proposed change is unacceptable, the
approved WQM plan is controlling.

fieview of WQM Plans

     Regional municipal construction grants personnel should review
sections of the work plans for WQM planning and draft WQM plans
focusing on facility planning elements to assure  coordination between
WQM planning and the municipal facilities grant program consistent
with this guidance.  State construction grants personnel should be
encouraged to do the same.
-------
      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  j\pft    2
                       WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460

                             PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO.  75-39
                             Program Guidance Memorandum PG-67
SUBJECT:  Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for the Ultimate Disposal
          of Residues from Wastewater Treatment Processes
FROM:     John T. Phett, Deputy Assistant Adnunistrator
          for Water Program Operations  (WH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators

ATTN:     Water Division Directors


I.  PURPOSE

     This memorandum provides guidance on the interpretation of Section
35.940.3 of the construction grant regulations (40 CFR Part 35) relative
to the eligibility of the cost of land required for the ultimate disposal
of residues resulting from wastewater treatment.

II.  BACKGROUND

     Program Guidance Memorandum No. 49 covers the eligibility of land
acquisition costs for land treatment processes and refers to the future
distribution of this guidance on the eligibility of land costs for
ultimate disposal of residues.

III.  POLICY

     A.  Allowable Costs

     The cost of purchasing land for ultimate disposal of residues from
wastewater treatment is allowable for Federal grant assistance.  Ultimate
disposal of residual wastes from wastewater treatment includes disposal
of sludges, ashes, grit or other residues by means of depositing such
materials in land fill sites.

     Proposals to acquire land for spreading sludge may be approved if
the grantee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator
that the primary purpose of the acquisition is disposal of such residues,
and disposal by other means set out in B.2.b. of this guidance is less
cost-effective or not available.
-------
     Any land areas to be purchased for land spreading, except for
buffer zones, must be fully utilized for that purpose.  Land require-
ments for the spreading of sludge shall be kept to an absolute minimum
determined on the basis of the maximum sludge application rate commen-
surate with ensuring that ground and surface waters are protected and,
in addition for agricultural lands, that cropland resources are pro-
tected and harmful contaminants are not accumulated in the human food
chain.  Land acquisition costs for land areas with application rates
below 10 dry tons per acre per year will, in general, not be allowable,
although the Regional Administrator may grant a variance for a larger
land area (with a lower sludge application rate) on a case-by-case basis
where more cost-effective.

     The cost of land required for land fill or land spreading, irregu-
larities in spray patterns, reasonable buffering, dikes and drainage
ditches for surface runoff control, groundwater protection measures, and
similar uses is allowable.

     Where a purpose of a project is to improve or reclaim land as well
as to dispose of residual wastes, costs may be eligible for an amount
not to exceed the cost of the most cost-effective single purpose method
of disposal of the residual wastes as determined in accordance with this
guidance.

     Where land is to be used for disposal of both residues from munici-
pal wastewater treatment and other wastes, only the land cost properly
allocable to disposal of municipal wastewater treatment residues is
allowable.  One example of such cost allocation would be division of
costs between municipal waste treatment residues and other municipal
solid wastes based on their relative dry weight proportions.  If the dry
weight of the treatment residues handled at the joint disposal site is
less than twenty-five  (25) percent of the dry weight of all the wastes
to be disposed of in the land fill, no land acquisition costs for treat-
ment residues will be allowed.

     While not exclusive, the cost of land for the following uses is not
allowable except where such land is also necessary for eligible residual
waste management uses as listed above.

     1.  Sites for placement of buildings, equipment, facilities and
sludge conveyance measures including pipelines, and access roads.

     2.  Sludge storage basins or other temporary storage facilities,
sludge drying beds, waste stabilization ponds and evaporation ponds.

     The cost of leasing land or of obtaining use of land under contract
for residue disposal or utilization is not allowable.
-------
     B.  Cost Effectiveness Analysis

     1.  Factors to be Considered

     The facility plan for the overall waste treatment system most
include a cost-effectiveness analysis of residual waste management
alternatives. The choice of a residual waste management method is to be
based on comparison of overall waste treatment system alternatives
recognizing the close interrelationships between those facilities
comprising the residual waste management subsystem and the remainder of
the overall waste treatment system.

     The residual waste management subsystem includes the facilities,
management practices and lands required ultimately to assimilate resid-
ual wastes into land or air media, beginning with the grit, raw sludges
and other residues obtained directly from wastewater treatment processes.
To aid in screening residual waste management subsystems, the costs and
non-monetary factors for such subsystems may be compared on a preliminary
basis for each wastewater treatment process option.  Alternatives which
seem feasible on the basis of the preliminary comparison should be
analyzed in detail.

     The cost-effectiveness analysis of residual waste management options
is to include consideration of the following factors, with the amount
and level of detail commensurate with local conditions, the number of
feasible options available, and the complexity, size and nature of the
proposed waste treatment system:

          a.  Relations of wastewater treatment process option to volume
and characteristics of sludges and residues produced.

          b.  Conditioning, stabilization or pre-application treatment
for the disposal or utilization option.

          c.  Alternatives for landfill or land spreading site location
and for conveyance to sites.

          d.  Sludge storage requirements.

          e.  Market for free haul or sale of processed sludge and
expected net revenues from sales.

          f.  Option of contract payments for hauling and disposal of
processed sludge.

          g.  Land fill management procedures.

          h.  Land application method and rates and resultant area
required as determined by soils, climate and other site characteristics.

          i.  Options for obtaining necessary land management rights.
-------
          j.  Necessary provisions for and costs of relocating persons,
households and businesses.

          k.  Net revenues from sale of crops, forest products and live-
stock produced by land acquired for sludge application.

          1.  Environmental effects including impacts on air and water
quality and aesthetics.

          m.  Odor control measures necessary for land fill or land
spreading site.

          n.  Groundwater protection measures.

          o.  Surface runoff control measures.

          p.  Other public health measures.

          q.  Energy requirements and potential recovery facilities.

     2.   Special Considerations for Land Management Options

          a.  Arrangements for land management must be made to assure
operation over at least a 10 year period, but ordinarily not more than
20 years, to protect investments in facilities and equipment for disposal
or utilization of residual wastes.

          b.  The following alternatives must'be considered prior to
recomrrending outright purchase of land for land spreading of sludge or
other residues:

               - Sale or free haul of processed sludge or residues
                 for use by others.

               - Contractual payment for hauling processed sludge or
                 residues for use by others.

               - Contract with landowners for rights to develop land
                 spreading site and to apply sludges, preferably with
                 either or both tasks to be performed by owners.

               - Leasing of land spreading site, preferably providing
                 for site development or operations by owners.

               - Land fill

          c.  The cost-effectiveness analysis should give special atten-
tion to the alternatives of sale, free-haul or contractual payment to
haul which result in beneficial uses of sludge.  These alternatives help
achieve the wastewater treatment objectives without requiring the treat-
ment authority to undertake a major program of land acquisition, manage-
ment and utilization.
-------
     C.   Land Acquisition Requirements

     Grant award or written EPA approval shall be obtained prior to any
acquisition of land for residual waste management in order that such
costs will be allowable.  The procedures for the independent appraisal
ard acquisition of land contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (P.L. 91-646) 42 USC
Section 4651 et. sq. shall be followed.  The EPA Regulation implementing
this statutory requirement is contained in Subpart F of Part 4 of Title
40 of the CFR, Section 4.60000 et. seq.

     The grantee shall certify to the Regional Administrator that it
will comply with 40 CFR Section 30.810 and specifically Section 30.810
and Section 30.810-5.  The certification will be reflected as an encum-
brance in the title of the land.  The grantee shall obtain fee siinple
title to all land acquired with grant assistance, with no encumbrances
other than the one protecting the Federal interest.
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     .

.    ,0^                      WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
"
                                 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-40
                               ..Program Guidance Memorandum PG-68
                               MAY7   1976
MEMORANDUM
                                                       x*n
FROM:      John T.  Rhett,  Deputy Assistant Administrator^^
                                                        /
SUBJECT:  Priority List Supplement to FY 197/ Construction Grants Guidance.

          John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Admin
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

          Richard D. Redenius, Deputy Assistant Administrator-!^*'*'**'*"'*  of*~—
          for Resources Management (PM-224)

TO:       All Regional Administrators
          Regions I through X

     Enclosed with this memorandum are detailed, step-by-step procedures
to supplement the more general priority list instruction contained in the
FY 1977 Construction Grants Operating Guidance.  These detailed procedures
outline a systematic approach for Regional Office review and analysis of
the expanded State Priority Lists through use of both manual and automated
techniques.  In addition, a series of output reports to facilitate this
analysis have been programmed and will be available for Regional use.

     The priority list, more than any other single document, is the
foundation for effective and coordinated planning and management in the
construction grants program.  Without a complete, accurate, and timely
project list, with easy access for data analysis and update, sound pro-
gram management is not possible.  The guidance prescribes a series of
priority list requirements that require careful and time-consuming
Regional Office review and analysis.  Step-by-step procedures, stand-
ardized across all Regions, lessen this burden on the Regions and ensure
that the final priority lists meet all program management requirements.

     The enclosed procedures stress two points that are absolutely
essential to improving EPA management in the construction grant program.
The first, mentioned  above, is the establishment of high quality, multi-
year priority lists.  Our construction grants program cannot operate
effectively without them.  The second point is the need to utilize the
computer to the greatest extent feasible for day-to-day management and
analysis.  The link between automatic data processing and management
activity in a program as complex and  large as ours is fundamental.  An
expanded GICS system, of which the enclosed procedures are one part,
provides this management-system interface.
-------
                                      -2-
     The achievement of sound program management in the construction
grants program is the top Agency Water priority in FY 1977.   Attain-
ment of high quality and up-to-date project priority lists,  available
for Regional analyses from an automated information system,  will  go
a long way toward achieving that important objective.

     Questions on this process should be directed to either  Michael
Quigley, Chief, Program Planning and Evaluation Branch (426-8990) or
Paul Wagner, Chief, Grants Information Branch (755-2513).
Attachment
-------
                 PROJECT PRIORITY LIST PRE-PROCESSING
                         AND KEYPUNCH GUIDANCE
PRE-PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS

1.  Check the forms to insure conformance with the format shown on
    the enclosed SAMPLE priority list form.   Each line of the list
    must be a separate step (Step 1 on one line,  Step 2 on another
    line, etc.).

2.  Write and encircle the following GICS transaction numbers at the
    top of each column of each page, as shown on the SAMPLE form:
GICS Transaction
No. Encircled on
	Form	

    12
    51
    14
    52
    15

    59
    60


    01

    87

    A5

    20

    19
Column Name
  on Form

Applicant Legal Name
                Street
                City
                Zip
                County

Priority Number
NPDES Number


Grant Ident. Number

Type of Project

Target Date

Project Description

Estimated EPA Assistance
GICS Data Element Name

Applicant Name (refer to
page 133 of GICS User's
Manual for standard
conventions)
State Project Priority
List Number

EPA Facility Identification
Number

Grant Identification Number

Project Step Code

Application Target Date

Project Description

Grant Amount Requested of EPA
3.  These instructions assume the FY 76 Priority List was deleted
    before the entry of this proposed FY 77 List.   (Note:  Be sure
    you  list the FY 76 Priority List for a State using a job similar
    to the one found on page 104 of the GICS Manual before you delete
    any  of the FY 76 records.
-------
KEYPUNCH INSTRUCTIONS

     Each row on the document will be the source of several keypunched
cards.  Each of these cards will have the same general format.  The
blocks of information to be keypunched are marked by encircled numbers
(a transaction number).   There will -be several cards punched from each
row on the form.  If no information is given for a particular transaction,
punch a card with that transaction number and no information.

     The keypunch row on the format consists of fixed and variable
fields.  Columns 1/19 are the same on each of the cards.

     The format is:  RR,GGGGGG,N,99,0,A,EE,D...D
WHERE:
     Col 1/2

     Col 3

     Col 4/9
RR
GGGGGG
     Col 10

     Col 11
N or C
     Col 12

     Col 13/14
99
     Col 15

     Col 16
Your
     region number is typed on every card.

A comma constant typed on every card.

A six-digit number that is typed on every
card.  The first two digits (numeric only)
are found in the upper left portion of the
form (STATE	) and remain the same for
the entire form.  The next four digits are
found in the fifth column (5T); type the
first four digits of the number found in
column (ftp.

A comma constant typed on every card.

A letter N for New, or C for Continuation
(subsequent related project) typed on every
card.  Reference the last two digits found
in column^m-- if '01', type N; other than
'01', type C unless'01' has previously
appeared on a Priority List and then with-
drawn .

A comma constant typed on every card.

A two-digit number (Sequence Number) typed
on every card.  This number is found in
column ((£p .  Use the last two digits of
Grant Ident. Number found in column ^Q.

A comma constant typed on every card.

A number zero (Amendment Number) is typed
on every card.
-------
     Col 17

     Col 18

     Col 19

     Col 20/21
A
EE
     Col 22

     Col 23
D. . .D
A comma constant typed on every card.

A letter A constant typed on every card.

A comma constant typed on every card.

A two-digit transaction number that changes
on each card.  This transaction number is
encircled at the top of each column of
information to be keypunched.

A comma constant typed on every card.

This is the general information to be
keypunched from each block in a column.
There are several transactions to be typed from each row on the form in
positions 23/80:
     NAME
Applicant Data
          TRANSACTION

             12, 51,
             14, 52
             and 15
NPDES Number  (EPA
Facility Identification
Number]
Grant Identification
Number
             60-
             01
Type of Project
 (Project Step Code)
              87
                             INSTRUCTION

               This data will generally be the
               address of a city or town.
               EXAMPLE:  City of Milwaukee--
                         type as Milwaukee,
                         City of
               05,170388,N,01,0,A,12, Milwaukee,
               City of

               Keypunch this number as shown
               on the form.
               EXAMPLE:  05,170388,N,01,0,A,60,
               IL0021380

               Keypunch nine numerical digits.
               Do not keypunch  dashes.
               EXAMPLE:  0388-01 would be
                         punched as 170388010
                         in positions 23/31.
               The  17 would be  found in  the
               upper left of the form after
               State.  A zero is always  punched
               in position  31 for  this transaction,
               05,170388,N,01,0,A,01,170388010

               Keypunch one numerical digit.
               EXAMPLE:  1.  would be punched  as
                         1  in position 23.
               05,170388,N,01,0,A,87,1
-------
Application Target Date
 AS
Project Description
Estimated EPA
Assistance
(Grant Amount Requested
of EPA)
 20
 19
Grant Type
 04
Priority Number
(Priority List Number)
59
EXAMPLE:  7705 keypunch as
          770531 in positions
          762/767
05,170388,N,01,0,A,A5,770531

Keypunch the alpha numeric digits
in positions 23 to 72.  Truncate
descriptions at position 72, if
necessary.

Keypunch the numerical digits
only, starting in position 23.
Do not keypunch commas.  Do
not enter cent amounts if any
are shown on the form.
EXAMPLE:  05,170388, N,01,0,A,19,
          900100

Keypunch the letter N or C in
position 23.  This transaction
is typed for each set of trans-
actions on the form--one for
each line on the form.  Reference
the last,two digits found in
column(oi)- if '01', type N; if
other than'01', type C unless
'01' has previously appeared on
a Priority List and then with-
drawn.  The letter punched here
will always be the same as the
letter punched in position 11.
EXAMPLE:  05,170388,N,01,0,A,04,N

Keypunch the handwritten numbers
to the left of the Applicant Name
block.  This is a four digit field.
The number should be entered as a
three digit number with leading
zeroes in the first three positions
of the field (positions 23/25).
Zero fill the fourth digit  (position
26).
EXAMPLE:  1 would be punched as 0010
         10 would be punched as 0100
        100 would be punched as 1000
05,170388,N,01,0,A,59,0100
-------
Action Step
23
Action Date
24
Priority FY
Other Required
Transactions
57
02
04
05
06
13
17
Keypunch a PF for those projects
on the fundable portion of the
proposed list.  Keypunch a PN
on those projects on the extended
portion of the proposed list.
After the list is approved the PF
is changed to XF.

Keypunch the received date of
the proposed list.  If desired
when the list is approved change
this date to the list approval
date.

Keypunch 77 the year of this
proposed list.

Remember to type these required
transactions as explained on page
22 of the GIGS Manual.  They are
required by the system to create
a record.
-------
\-  3
                       *•». '
                       •f]
                         =t
                Sui e
                o 3
                                                                                                                                         £•"
                                                                                                                                         Q.
                                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                                         Ol
                                                                                                                                         01
                                                                                                                                             8
                                                                                                                                             o
                                                                                                                                             <_)
                                                                                                                                          c
                                                                                                                                          o
                                                                                                                                          o

                                                                                                                                          Q
                                                                                                                                          0)
                                                                                                                                         4~>
                                                                                                                                         on

                                                                                                                                          10
                                                                                                                                          C7I
                                                                                                                                          ai
                                                                                                                                         t.
                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                                         •-->
                                                                                                                                         •o
                                                                                                                                         c
                                                                                                                                         <0

                                                                                                                                         a.
                                                                                                                                         (U
                                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                                         •o
-------
Priority List Procedures

Introduction:  The procedures that follow outline an interim step-by-
step process for evaluating State priority list submissions within the
time constraints established in the FY 1977 Construction Grants Program
Guidance.  They require entry of the new priority list into GICS prior
to its approval to facilitate detailed manual and computer analysis of
the list as soon after initial receipt as possible.  The analyses are
for program management purposes only and do not set out the steps necessary
to comply with regulatory requirements regarding priority criteria,
public participation, and state program planning.
     If followed, the procedures will ensure that the priority lists are
properly entered into GICS, are systematically evaluated, and are updated
as necessary through the GICS process.  Sections include a checklist for
preprocessing  of the priority list  to ensure that all basic requirements
are included (Part  I B), a computer data entry process  for the tentative
priority list  (Part  I C and Attachment  I), a series of  suggested  output
reports  to  facilitate Regional analysis and  evaluation  of  the  priority
list  (Part  I D), and a  feedback  document and process  to the State to
facilitate  priority  list improvement  (Part I E).   The computer programs
required to enter  the priority list into GICS  and  generate  the suggested
output  reports will  be  available  for  Regional  use  by  June  1.
      It  is  suggested that  each Region  assign one individual to  coordinate
the  priority list  review and analysis.   Contact  between headquarters  and
the  Regions should be  through this  individual.
      The Program Planning  and Evaluation  Branch  of the  Municipal  Construction
Division will  be monitoring  the  progress  of  the  priority list  approval
-------
procedures and will  assist Regional  Offices as necessary.   Please note
that these procedures are applicable to this year only.   Long term
procedures will be developed and promulgated during the next year.
Contact Michael Quigley at 426-8990 if there are questions on this
process.
 I.  Priority List Review Procedure--May through August.
    A.  Time Constraints In Guidance.
        1.  May 1, 1976--Initial submission due to Regional Office
        2.  July 15, 1976--Final priority list due to Regional Office.
        3.  August 15, 1976--EPA approval of priority list.
    B.  Pre-processing review of list—Manual review after initial
        receipt of list.  (Visual checks, elementary analysis prior to computer
        entry).
        1.  List in required format  (per guidance)?
        2.  Projects listed in priority order by Step - one Step per  line?
        3.  Are all data elements included?  Are they correctly displayed?
            a.  Applicant name
            b.  Project number  (including sequence number)
            c.  Project step
            d.  Project description
            e.  Amount requested
            f.  Priority ranking
            g.  Application target date
            h.  NPDES  number
            i.  Priority points  (optional)
            j.  Applicant address  (optional)
-------
4.  Does list clearly distinguish between  fundable project  list
    and extended list?  The fundable list  includes enough
    projects to fully utilize available funding and is  subject
    to the public participation requirements.   The extended list
    includes, at a minimum, all subsequent steps of previously
    funded or active projects.   (See guidance for detailed  definition.)
5.  Are all projects, including those on the existing list, on
    the proposed new list?  The suggested procedure would  be
    to compare the current list (from GICS or hard copy)
    against the proposed list by grant number.  All projects
    should be listed out oh separate sheets that (a) are on
    current list but not on proposed list, (b) are on both
    lists but with changes in some elements and (c) are on
    proposed list but not on current list.  Any project
    omissions on new list should be checked.   (The new list
    must  include all projects on the priority  list.)
6.  Regarding fundable list:
    a.  Are  reserves clearly and explicitly identified?  Are
        they within  the regulatory  requirements?  Are they
        reasonable?
    b.  Are  projects with  target dates within  next six months
        identified by month?  Are all  other project  target  dates
        identified by the  last month of the quarter?
7.  Regarding extended project list:
    a.  Are  extended  list  projects  in  priority order and displayed ort
        one  line  per  step?
    b.  Does  list  appear  to  run  through FY  1979?
-------
        c.   Is  there  any general  indication  that the State did  not
            comply  with the  multiyear  criteria  outlined in the  guidance?
    8.   The Region  should evaluate the severity of priority list deficiencies
        based on the  visual  checks outlined  above and any others that the
        Region  deems  necessary.   Any serious omissions -- e.g.
        incorrect grant nos>, missing data elements, no extended
        priority list -- and/or variations from the guidance should be
        corrected through contact with the State before proceeding to
        the next step.   In no case should pre-processing deficiencies be
        uncorrected past June 1 in order to  adhere to schedule  constraints
        in the  guidance.
C.   Computer data entry  (This section will  be  coordinated by
    the Grants  Administration Division at Headquarters.)
    1.   List, in priority sequence, from current GICS file all
        projects on the currently approved list.  This list should
        be used to manually compare the currently approved list
        with the proposed FY 1977 list to ensure no projects are
        inadvertently deleted.  In addition, the list provides
        a record of remaining approved FY 1976 projects at the  point
        the old list is overlayed in the file.    (See analysis D.I
        for suggested output report.)
    2.   Prepare priority list format for direct data entry (See
        attached "Project Priority List Pre-processing &  Keypunch
        Guidance" developed by the Grants Administration  Division).
    3.   Delete all priority list projects from current GICS file
        i.e. no "X", "EX",  "WX" projects should  be  left on file.)
-------
    4.   Enter interim  priority  list  (extended  and  fundable  portions)
        into GICS  file utilizing  routine  update  run.
(Note (a):   From this  Step  until  the  priority  list is  approved
            on August  15,  there will  be  r\o_ approved priority  list
            in GICS.   The  interim list will  be coded "PF" and "PE"
            (for fundable  and extended list, respectively)  and  be
            labelled  the FY 1977  list.  Any projects funded between
            May 1  and  August 15 that are on the  interim priority
            list should be replaced by the new application  or award
            data.
D.  Analysis of proposed State Priority List—Computer Testing
    For each analysis below, an application program has been written
    and will be provided to each Region by the Headquarters Municipal
    Construction Division.  A format of the five programs will be
    provided to each Regional priority list coordinator as  soon as
    they are available.
    1.  Priority List Report.  (Format:  All proposed priority list
        projects in priority ranking  sequence.  Duplicates the priority
        list  format included in  FY 1977 guidance.)  This list is the
        basic  working document to manually  verify  that the list  agrees
        with  State submission; to highlight data  element omissions;
        to  check for  incorrect or incomplete  data  items; and other
        audit checks  on the  data entry  run.
     2.  Priority  List Output Commitment  Report.   (Format:  All  proposed
        priority  list projects in  sequence  by application  target date,
        step,  and  grant number.  Number  and dollar value of  Step 1,
        2,  3 for  all  projects  summed for every  target date.)   This  list
-------
    will  display the application receipt schedule through the
    extended list dates.   It can be used as the basis for creating
    and verifying the construction grants output commitments  for
    number and dollar value of awards.   Note:   A worksheet to
    aid the Region in projecting target award  dates from application
    dates and inserting the designated reserves into the quarterly
    totals will be provided with the output formats.
3.  Step 1, 2, 3 Project Detail Report.  (Format:  All  proposed
    priority list projects, applications, and  funded Step 1 and
    2 projects grouped together by grant number.  Data elements
    include action step, project step, award or application date,
    projected completion date, percent complete, and amount.)
    This list will display the funded and planned project
    mix for every grant and flag the following error conditions
    as applicable:
    a.  Target certification dates for priority list projects
        that preceed or follow by more than six months the
        projected completion dates of prior steps of the same
        grant.
    b.  Target certification dates for priority list projects
        that are less than six months or more than  eighteen
        months from  the application or award date of preceeding
        step of  same grant.
    c.  Grants that  are not planned to Step 3 stage.
   , d.  Priority list projects that do not have a previously awarded
        or  planned earlier step.
-------
4.  Step 1, 2, 3 Project Summary Report.   (Format:   A summary
    report of project mix, indicating number of "new" or
    "continuation" projects on priority list, unplanned "continuation"
    awards from (already funded) existing grants, etc.  Displayed
    by number and dollar totals by year of planned award and by
    age of grants not planned to Step 3).  This summary report will
    give an overall indication of the mix of projects on the priority
    list compared to the active project mix in data base.   Unless
    priority criteria have changed, it should be assumed that grants
    awarded earlier have priority over new grants.
5.  PMS/GICS Linkup Report.  (Format:  All large grants by step
    from latest program management submission data base compared
    to GIGS information for same grant.  Data elements include
    grant amount and action step displayed by quarter through
    FY 1978.)  This report is intended to facilitate Regional
    management of  large grants over $10 million eligible cost.
    The report will check for completeness of proposed priority
    list   regarding known large projects, for new grants on
    priority  list  not in GIGS, and for differences in award dates
    and amounts.   Note:  This report  is  currently being utilized
    in headquarters and is available  to  the Regions.
6.  The results of the analysis above should indicate whether
    serious problems exist in the  content of the priority list
    submission.   The Region should prepare summary questions for review
    with  the  State Offices (See Part  E below).
-------
E.   Feedback to State—Prior to Regional  Approval  of Initial  List
    1.   An output listing of the State proposed priority list
        will be generated on multipart paper.   All problems and
        questions on a project-by-project basis that resulted from
        the computer analysis should be noted on this report.  The format
        of this report will be supplied by the Headquarters Municipal
        Construction Division.
    2.   A copy of the output report with written comments should be
        returned to State indicating major concerns and asking for
        clarification of all discrepancies.  Allow approximately
        two week turnaround for response on initial cycle.
    3.   State should enter necessary changes directly on the report
        and return to Region.  Region should maintain close contact
        with State either through telephone or personal visits.
    4.   All changes accepted by the Region should be coded and
        entered into normal GICS update cycle.  All deletions
        and additions of data elements or projects should be inserted
        in this way.  If the magnitude of the change requires
        massive revision of the proposed priority list in GICS, it
        may be necessary to repeat Section C on initial data entry.
    5.   Region should repeat review process (i.e. repeat Section B
        & D) as appropriate.
    6.   Repeat above procedures until list is correct.
 F.  Approve priority list—August 15.
    1.   The final listing after all corrections have been made should
        be the approvable list.  The list should  be transmitted to
        Regional Administrator for approval.   (The fundable  list is
        subject.to  formal approval; the extended  list should receive
-------
   2.  Once approved,  the  action  step  on  each  priority list fundable
       project  must  be changed  from  "PF"  to  "XF".   This change will
       denote approval  in  the GICS system.
   3.  The approved  list in  GICS  is  the official  list and should
       be promulgated  through the GICS system.
   4.  A copy of the list, with RA approval  noted, should be kept on
       file  in  the Regional  Office for ready reference at all times.
 II.   Quarterly  Priority List Update  Procedure—Oct. 31. Jan. 31, April 30.
      A.  Send copy of  Priority  List  printout to State on September 30,
         December 31,  and March 30.
      B.  State  makes changes as necessary and returns list.
      C.  Region performs analysis outlined in Part I, as appropriate.
      D.  Region approves changes, enters, into GICS, and promulgates
         new list (by Oct. 31,  Jan.  31, and April 30).
III.   More  Frequent State Update
           A  State Office, at its discretion, can submit new  priority  list
      information at any time between .the quarterly updates.  The Region
      should  use the procedures  outlined in Part I, as appropriate,  to
      evaluate and enter changes.  If required, a monthly,  rather than
      quarterly, update procedure may be established.  Changes made
      between monthly or quarterly updates may be entered  into GICS
      immediately or batched for  periodic update runs.  The latest
      priority list printout will be used as work  sheet between  update
      runs.
                                        U.S. Government Printing Office: 1976-679-866/494 Regions
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                    2<5 197$
                                                           OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                          HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                                   CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                                   PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
Subject:  Construction Grants Program Issuances    PRM No. 76-1

From:     John T. Rhett, National Program Manager
          for Construction Grants (WH546)

To:       Regional Administrators (I thru X)
          ATTN:  Water Division Directors


PURPOSE:  The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth requirements
for policy issuances pertaining to the conduct of the construction
grants program and to explain the relationships among the various
publications.

DISCUSSION:  Over the years, policy documents (PGMs, CGs) have been
issued in response to a particular problem arising in conjunction with
the conduct of the construction grant program.  When grant regulations,
or existing PGMs and CGs pertaining to that problem, were lacking in
specificity or nonexistent, a new PGM was issued.  Although the PGM
system served adequately as a means for providing basic communication
between Headquarter's program managers and Regional  Offices, it was
marked by two major shortcomings.

     1.  The primary means for insuring that newly issued policy
conformed to the program as a whole was to relate it to the Title II
regulations or to previous issuances on the same subject.  However,
it was difficult to assess the impact of the new policy on the total
program because a single document integrating total  program policy
did not exist.  This problem has been addressed with the issuance of
the Handbook of Procedures, which sets forth, in operational terms,
construction grant program policy as of February 1976.

     2.  PGMs were used to provide many kinds of directives pertaining
to the construction grants program.  In general, their contents can be
categorized into three groups:
-------
          a.  Policy - new or variation of existing.

          b.  Procedures for administering policy.

          c.  Reporting, or establishing ceiling/quotas, or directing
         document processing (e.g., reimbursement).

     Since PGMs contained such a varied mix of directions, their
relative importance to the recipient was often not clear.

     The program issuance system described in this memorandum is
designed to address the above shortcomings.

IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE:
     1.  Memorandums:
          Under the revised system there will be three types of
memorandums.

          a.  Construction Grants Program Requirements Memoranda (PRMs)

          PRMs will be used to convey program policy, the specific
provisions of which will not be available in existing regulations or
in other EPA policy documents.  The title "Program Requirements Memoranda"
will be reserved solely for the purpose of transmitting construction
grant program policy.  PRMs will be signed by the National Program
Manager and adherence to their provisions will be binding on those to
whom it is directed.

          D-  Transmittal Memoranda (TM.s)

          TMs will be used to transmit changes to the Handbook of
Procedures.  Each TM will contain instructions regarding its purpose
and implementation and for inserting accompanying Handbook replacement
pages.

          Two types of TMs will be issued.

          A TM will be issued when the policy or procedure to be
promulgated can be effectively transmitted by merely altering a section
or sections of the Handbook.

          A TM will also be issued when the policy or procedure to be
disseminated cannot or should not (because of its substance or detail)
be readily or fully integrated into the Handbook and, therfore, must
be issued as a separate PRM.  Following the issuance of the PRM, the
substance of that PRM will be integrated into the Handbook (by reference
and changes) and the revised pages will be distributed with a covering
TM.
-------
          c-  Construction Grants Program Operation Memoranda (POMs)

          POMs will be used as directives which will set forth periodic
reporting requirements, ceilings or quotas, or will relate to other
program actions and, will lose their applicability within limited time
frames; or, will be primarily "housekeeping" in nature.

     PRMs, TMs and POMs will be issued in standard formats (see
attached) and will have number identifications with annual and serial
parts - e.g., 77-3 (the third issuance in FY-1977).

     2.  Other Program Publications:

     As with memoranda, the form, format and title of publications
prepared by the Municipal Construction Division to provide in-depth
assistance to the Region, States and grantees on the technical and
administrative aspects of the program, have varied in accordance with
their sponsors and writers.

     Generally these publications were prepared primarily for one of
the following purposes:

     a.  to generally inform on a program matter.

     b.  to provide instructions on how to perform a function or
         fulfill a program requirement.

     c.  to set forth detailed program requirements to which
         conformance is expected.

     So that intended readers will be better able to understand the purpose
and use of such publications, specific terms will be used in the titles
to distinguish one type from another.

     Accordingly, for items "a" and "b" above, the term "Construction
Grant Program Information" will be used;  for "c" "Construction Grant
Program Requirements".

     A list of previous publications, categorized as "information"
or "requirements", is attached.

     3.  How The System Will Work:

     Central to the system will be the Handbook of Procedures.  Using
the Handbook as a base document, it is now possible to relate a
proposed policy or procedural issuance to a total program standard
rather than to a particular functional standard.  Since the need to
promulgate new policy or require new procedures would arise because
of the absence of such in the Handbook, future issuances will require
updating the Handbook.
-------
     As indicated above, policy and procedural  requirements,  which
can be effectively disseminated by altering the Handbook,  will  be
issued via the TMs.  In addition, when a new PRM is issued, the
essence of the proposed policy will be integrated into the Handbook,
and citations, referring the reader to the PRM, will  be inserted where
appropriate.  Handbook pages containing the changes and citations
will be transmitted by TM shortly after the issuance of the PRM.

     Regional Offices will be issued, in a timely manner,  a small
supply of TMs for internal use and distribution to the States.
Quarterly, or more frequently when the need arises, Handbook
replacement pages will be reproduced and distributed through
the GSA Denver Office, to all identified holders of the
Handbook.  Similarly, copies of PRMs and appropriate laws,
regulations and guidance documents will be reproduced and distributed,
through Denver, to holders of the Manual of References ("blue book").

     Prior to issuing PRMs, TMs and POMs, existing PGMs, which are
found to be outdated, superseded or made useless with the publication
of the Handbook, will be cancelled.  Those remaining will  be reissued
as Program Requirements Memoranda so that their purpose will  be clear
and the PRM series will be made whole.

     The Handbook would not be complete if it only addressed
program policy originating within the Municipal Construction Division.
Therefore, it will be necessary to insure that out-of-Division
directives affecting the program are fully reviewed by the Division
before they are disseminated.  To accomplish this, copies of all policy
issuances impacting the construction grants program shall  be sent, in
draft form, to the National Program Manager.  Upon receipt, the draft
will undergo internal reviews to determine a program position (concur,
reject, modify).

     If that proposed directive relates solely to the construction grants
program, upon concurrence, it will be issued jointly by the National
Program Manager and the originating office.  If it is primarily a policy
issuance, a PRM Number will be assigned and, concurrently, the Handbook
will be altered as previously described.

     If the directive relates to other programs as well as construction
grants, the National  Program Manager will communicate his position
to  the originating office.  Upon issuance by that office, a PRM may  be
prepared and the  Handbook altered  to reflect the substance of the
issuance.

     As in the past,  policy documents originating in the Municipal
Construction Division will unlergo outside reviews before they are
issued.  As  appropriate,  views will  be obtained from the Office of
General Counsel,  the  Office of Resources Management, etc., from TAG
and public  interest groups, and  from the Regions.
-------
     In carrying out the above,  it is important  to  bear in  mind  that
the usefulness of the Handbook does not lie in its  completeness  --
but rather in its simplicity and conciseness.  The  Handbook is not
intended as a compendium of all  policy related to the Construction
Grants program.  Rather, its purpose is to convey basic operational
policy.  Therefore, in screening proposed policy for inclusion in
the Handbook, it will be as important to ensure  that its pages are not
overly encumbered as it will be  to insure that important policy, in
operational terms, is not overlooked.

     To summarize the essence of the new issuance system, the
attached  chart is provided.
-------
                 Construction Grants Program Issuances
     Purpose

Standing Policy, Adherence to
 which is Mandatory in Conducting
 the Construction Grants Program
          Title

"Construction Grants Program
 Requirements Memorandum"

"Construction Grants Program
 Requirements Publication"

"Construction Grants Handbook
 of Procedures"

"Transmittal Memorandum"
Directives Limited to the Operation
 of the Construction Grants Program
 at Regional Office
"Construction Grants Program
 Operating Memorandum"!
Information and Guidance
"Construction Grants Program
 Operating Memorandum"1

"Construction Grants Program
 Information Publication"
1
 Dual purpose.
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                            OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                            HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                             CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                             PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                             PRM #76-
SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:
National Program Manager for Construction Grants

Regional Administrators
ATTN:  Water Division Directors
PURPOSE:  (Indicate, in succinct terms, the specific purpose of the
          memorandum)
DISCUSSION:    (Background of how problem arose, how handled, relevance of
               existing policy, why new issuance needed, short and long
               range objectives to be met by PRM)
POLICY:
(Statement of new or revised policy)
IMPLEMENTATION:
     (As appropriate, indicate criteria for eligibility;
     procedures or interpretations to be followed.  State
     action Regions (States) to take including how
     and when.  As applicable, indicate under what
     circumstances exceptions to be made, etc.)
REFERENCES:    (Laws, Regulations, other PRM's, other EPA policy documents)
-------
SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:


PURPOSE:




DISCUSSION:
                                             TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM:
                                             TM No. 76-
National Program Manager for Construction Grants

Regional Administrators
ATTN:  Water Program Directors
HANDBOOK REVISIONS:
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                         OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                         HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                             CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                             PROGRAM OPERATIONS MEMORANDUM
                                             POM #76-
SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:
National Program Manager for Construction  Grants

Regional Administrators
ATTN:  Water Division Director
PURPOSE:
(Indicate, in succinct terms,  the  specific  purpose  of
the memorandum)
DISCUSSION:    (Background or general  explanation of need for issuance
               including short and  long  range objectives to be met)

IMPLEMENTATION:      (Specify action to be  taken  including how and when)
REFERENCES:    (As applicable)
-------
                CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS
"Construction Grants Program Requirements  Publications"

     "Handbook of Procedures - Construction  Grants  Program for
     Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works",  February 1976, (MCD-03)

     "Alternative Waste Management Techniques  for Best Practicable
     Waste Treatment",  EPA-430/9-75-013, October  1975 (MCD-13)

     "Federal Guidelines, Industrial  Cost  Recovery  Systems",
     February 1976 (MCD-45)

     "Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan"  (NOTE:  This  is
     contained in publication (MCD-02)  Revised,  May  1975,  (MCD-46)

     "Sewer System Evaluation",  Guidance,  March 1974

     "Design, Operation and  Maintenance of Waste  Water Treatment
     Facilities", Guidelines, September 1970

     "Design Criteria for Mechanical,  Electric, and Fluid  System
     and Component Reliability", Supplement  to  Design Guidelines, 1974

     "Wastewater Treatment Ponds", Supplement  to  Design  Guidelines,
     March 1974

     "Protection of Shellfish Waters", July  1974

"Construction Grants Program Information Publications"

     "Manual of References (Regulations, Guidance,  Procedures)  -
     Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works  Construction Grants
     Program", August 1975,  (MCD-02)

     "How to Obtain Federal  Grants to  Build  Municipal Wastewater
     Treatment Works",  Approximate Pub. Date -  June 1976,  (MCD-04)

     Technical Bulletin:  "Evaluation  of Land  Application  Systems",
     EPA/9-75-001, March 1975 (MCD-07)

     "Model Facility Plan for a Small  Community Supplement to:
     Guidance for Preparing  a Facility Plan",  September 1975, (MCD-08)
-------
Technical Report:  "Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land
Application", EPA-430/9-75-003, June 1975,  (MCD-10)

Technical Report:  "A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective
Wastewater Treatment", EPA-430/9-75-002, July 1975,  (MCD-11)

Technical Report:  "Wastewater Sludge Utilization",  EPA-430/9-75-015,
September 1975, (MCD-12)

Technical Report, "Review of Land Spreading of Liquid Municipal
Sewage Sludge", EPA-670/2-75-001, (MCD-15)

Technical Report, "Land Application of Wastewater in Australia",
May 1976, EPA-430/9-75-017, (MCD-16)

Technical Report, "Cost Effective Comparison of Land Application
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment", EPA-430/9-75-016, (MCD-17)

"Procedural Handbook for Value Engineering", December 1975,
EPA-430/975-020, (MCD-18)

Technical Report, "Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation &
Rehabilitation, Technical Report", December 1975, EPA-430/9-75-021,
(MCD-19)

Technical Report, "Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works", EPA-430/9-76-003, January 1976,
(MCD-20)

"Disinfection of Wastewater Task Force Report", July 1975,
(MCD-21)

Technical Report, "An Analysis of Construction Cost Experience
for Wastewater Plants", EPA-430/9-76-002, February 1976, (MCD-22)

"Construction Inspection Guide, Three Volumes", July 1976,  (MCD-23)

"Model Plan of Study, Supplement To: Guidance for Preparing a
Facility Plan", EPA-430/9-76-004, March 1976, (MCD-24)

"Feasibility of Overland Flow for Treatment of Raw Domestic
Wastewater", EPA-660/2-74-087, December 1974, (MCD-25)
-------
"Audit Guide for Construction Grant Program", February 1976,
(MCD-26)

"The Federal Wastewater Treatment Facilities Construction Grant
Process from A(bilene) to Z(anesville)" (MCD-47)

"Building for Clean Water" (MCD-48)

Supplements to Guidelines:  Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities - October 15, 1971

     - Storage & Handling Facilities for Chemicals Utilized in
       Wastewater Treatment

     - Use of Mercury in Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment

     - Use of New & Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technology

"Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced into Publicly Owned
Treatment Works", Guidelines, October 1973
-------
I 53Z£*°   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                              WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
                                 JUL  26 1975
                                                              OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                              HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                                PROGRAM  REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                                PRM  #76-2
   SUBJECT:  Cancellation of Certain Program Guidance
             Memoranda (PGM)

   FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
             for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

   TO:       Regional Administrators  (I thru X)
             ATTN:  Water Division Directors
        PURPOSE:  The purpose of this memorandum is to formally cancel
   certain PGMs, the policies of which have been, with the passage of
   time, superseded, outdated, or included in the Construction Grants
   Handbook of Procedures thus obviating their need.

        The PGM's which are cancelled are listed in the last paragraph
   of this memorandum.  A listing of those remaining in effect, along with
   their new designations, is attached.

        DISCUSSION:  As noted in PRM 76-1, this office has embarked on
   a program designed to unify and consistently maintain Construction Grant
   Program policy.  The program, which is gradually being implemented,
   will consolidate current policy, insure continuity in the issuance
   of new policy and provide for the orderly removal of policy documents
   which have been superseded or otherwise rendered inapplicable.   The
   first step in this program was the issuance of the Construction Grants
   Program Reference Manual.  The second, and most important step, was
   the development and issuance of the Construction Grant Handbook of
   Procedures -- the cornerstone upon which future program policy will
   be built.  The third was PRM 76-1 which established the overall system
   for communicating construction grant program policy and information
   to the Regions.

        This memorandum is a fourth step.

        As you will note, some of the cancelled PGM's are referenced in
   the Handbook.  This office will shortly issue the first Transmittal
-------
Memorandum (TM), as provided for in the Handbook,  which will  reflect
these cancellations as well  as the essence of PGMs issued subsequent
to the printing of the Handbook.

     IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE:  The following Program Guidance  Memoranda
are hereby cancelled:

     1.  PG-1, Grants for the Construction of Wastewater Treatment
     Works (5-16-73)

     2.  PG-2, Outline:  Municipal Permit Activity of NPDES:   Status
     and Objectives

     3.  PG-4, Great Lakes Area Treatment Works Projects (6-22-73)

     4.  PG-5, Grants for the Construction of Wastewater Treatment
     Works (5-31-73)

     5.  PG-6, Acceleration of Permit Program (6-25-73)

     6.  PG-7, EPA Strategy for an Operation and Maintenance
     Program for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities (6-27-73)

     7.  PG-8, Utilization of Contract Grant Authority Under  Title II
     of PL 92-500 to Increase Grants Awarded Under Section 8  of the
     Former Federal Water Pollution Control Act (7-17-73)

     8.  PG-9, Revised Policies and Procedures for Grants (7-20-73)

     9.  PG-10, Class Deviation from Regulation 40 CFR 35.925-8

     10. PG-11, Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Extended
     Administrative Processing Period (6-12-73)

     11. PG-12, Obligation Goals for Wastewater Treatment Works
     Construction Grants  (6-11-73)

     12. PG-13, Supplemental Funding, Grant Percentage, Section 202A
     (6-11-73)

     13. PG-15, Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines (9-11-73)

     14. PG-17, Standardized Construction Contract Documents  (5-17-73)
     (Superseded by PG-17A, 4-15-75)

     15. PG-18, Reimbursement  (10-30-73)

     16. PG-19, Non-Restrictive Specifications (11-2-73) (Superseded
     by PG-19A, 8-8-75)

     17. PG-21, Delegation of  Construction Grant Responsibilities to
     the States - Regional Commitments (11-27-73)
-------
18. PG-22, Reimbursement (12-21-73)

19. PG-23, Construction Grants Obligations Goals and Outlay
Allowances (1-9-74)

20. PG-26, Sewer System Evaluation (3-15-74)

21. PG-27 and 27-A, Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (3-26-74)
and (4-10-75). (Superseded by publication, MCD-13, Alternative Waste
Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment - October,  1975)

22. PG-29, Construction Grants Obligation Goals and Outlay
Allowances (4-8-74)

23. PG's 39, 39A, 39B, 39C, and 39D; Construction Grants Program
Management System (7-31-74 through 1-5-76) (Memoranda requesting
specific submissions whose purpose has been served).

24. PG's 40, 40A, 40B, 40C, and 40D; Obligations and Payments for
Construction Grant Reimbursement Projects (9-24-74 through 2-28-75)

25. PG-42, Engineering Services for Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
Revision of Fee Structures (10-23-74) (Superseded by the 12-17-75
Procurement Regulations): 35.936, .973, .938, .939, .965, and
Appendices C & D).

26. PG-45, Use of Value Engineering in the EPA Construction
Grant Program (12-11-74) (Superseded by PG-63)

27. PG-47, Relationship Between 201 and 208 Planning (3-11-74)
(Superseded by PG-66)

28. PG-48, Construction Grants Obligation Quotas (4-23-75)

29. PG-51, Questionnaire for Review of Facility Plans (6-25-75) (The
Facility Plan review procedures in the Handbook obviates the need
for this PG)

30. PG-53, Interim Guidance - Consulting Engineering Agreements - Title
II Construction Grants Program (7-8-75) (Publication of the 12-17-75
Procurement Regulations (35.936, .937, .938,  .965, and Appendices
C & D) replaces this PG)

31. PG-55, WWT Construction Grant Cost Projections (5-5-75) (The
Handbook contains material which obviates the need for this PG)

32. PG-64, Allowability/Eligibility of Miscellaneous Costs,
(2-5-76) (The information in this PG was included in the
Handbook).
-------
     Below is a list of Program Guidance Memorandums which will  remain in
effect.   So that their status vis-a-vis the new Construction Grants Program
Issuance System may be better understood, they are also being assigned
Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM)  designations.  Each PGM which is
carried forward into the new system as a PRM will  bear the prefix number 75.


  Former                                                            New
Designation                                                     Designation

   PG-3           Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for Waste        PRM No. 75-1
                  Treatment Projects

   PG-14          Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers    PRM No. 75-2

   PG-16          Waste Stabilization                            PRM No. 75-3

   PG-17A         Standardized Construction Contract            PRM No. 75-4

   PG-19A         Non-Restrictive Specifications                PRM No. 75-5

   PG-20          Adequacy of Treatment Certification           PRM No. 75-6

   PG-24          Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation    PRM No. 75-7

   PG-25          Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973—       PRM No. 75-8
                  Public Law 93-234

   PG-25A         Supplement to PG No. 25; Flood Disaster       PRM No. 75-9
                  Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)

   PG-28          User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery     PRM No. 75-10
                  System (ICR portion  only. U/C portion
                  superseded by PG-37)

   PG-30          Approval of Reimbursement Projects Not        PRM No. 75-11
                  Previously Serviced  by EPA

   PG-31          Obligation, Recovery and Reallotment of       PRM No. 75-12
                  Contract Authority Funds

   PG-32          Management of Construction Grants Funds       PRM No. 75-13

   PG-33          Grant Funds and Project Segmenting            PRM No. 75-14

   PG-34          Class Deviation—Use of Force Account         PRM No. 75-15
                  Work on Construction Grant Projects

   PG-35          Title II Regulations, Section 35.915(1)       PRM No. 75-16
                  Reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 Projects

   PG-36          Construction of Pretreatment or Treatment     PRM No. 75-17
                  Facilities for Municipal Utilities
-------
  Former                                                            New
Designation                                                     Designation

   PG-36A          Eligibility of Wastewater Treatment          PRM No. 75-18
                   Facilities at Municipally Owned Water
                   Treatment Works for Construction Grants

   PG-37           User Charges and Industrial  Cost Recovery    PRM No. 75-19
                   System

   PG-38           User Charge System                           PRM No. 75-20

   PG-41           Overruns, Reserves and Priority Lists        PRM No. 75-21

   PG-43           Policy Re Retention Payments                 PRM No. 75-22

   PG-44           Escalation Clauses in Construction           PRM No. 75-23
                   Grant Projects

   PG-46           Large City Problem in State  Priority         PRM No. 75-24
                   List

   PG-49           Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs        PRM No. 75-25
                   for Land Treatment Processes Under
                   Title II of the Federal  Water Pollution
                   Control Act, as Amended

   PG-50           Consideration of Secondary Environmental      PRM No. 75-26
                   Effects in the Construction  Grants
                   Process

   PG-52           Field Surveys to Identify Cultural Resources PRM No. 75-27
                   Affected by EPA Construction Grants Projects

   PG-54           Flood Insurance Requirements Effective       PRM No. 75-28
                   7/1/75

   PG-56           EPA Procedures in Initiating Debarment       PRM No. 75-29
                   Actions Against Grantee  Contractors

   PG-57           Cost Control                                 PRM No. 75-30

   PG-58           Facilitating EIS Preparation with Joint      PRM No. 75-31
                   EIS/Assessments (Piggybacking)

   PG-59           Compliance with Title VI in  the Construe-    PRM No. 75-32
                   tion Grants Program

   PG-60           Discount Rate                                PRM No. 75-33

   PG-61           Grants for Treatment and Control  of          PRM No. 75-34
                   Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater
                   Discharges
-------
  Former                                                            New
Designation                                                     Designation

   PG-62           Allowable Costs for Construction of          PRM No. 75-35
                   Treatment Works that Jointly Serve
                   Municipalities and Federal  Facilities

   PG-63           Value Engineering in the EPA Construction    PRM No. 75-36
                   Grants Program

   PG-65           User Charge System: Plan and Schedule        PRM No. 75-37

   PG-66           Relationship Between 201 Facility            PRM No. 75-38
                   Planning and Water Quality Management
                   (WQM) Planning

   PG-67           Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs        PRM No. 75-39
                   for the Ultimate Disposal of Residues
                   from Wastewater Treatment Processes

   PG-68           Priority List Supplement to FY 1977          PRM No. 75-40
                   Construction Grants Guidance
-------
       UNITED STATES  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                              Construction Grants
                              Program Requirements Manorandum No.
                              PPM #   76-3
SUBJECT:  Presentation of Local Government Costs of Wastewater
          Treatment Works in Facility Plans
FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)           /

TO:       Regional Administrators
ATTN:     Water Division Directors
I.  PURPOSE

     This memorandum provides Agency policy concerning the presentation
of local Costs of wastewater treatment works in Facility Plans and
public disclosure of this information.

II.  DISCUSSION

     Section 35.917-1(h) of the Construction Grant Regulations requires
that a facility plan include a "brief statement demonstrating that the
authorities which will be ittplementing the plan have the necessary
legal, financial, institutional, and management resources available to
insure the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed
treatment works."  Further, Section 35.925-5 requires that the Regional
Administrator shall, before awarding grant assistance, determine "that
the applicant has:

          (a)  agreed to pay the non-Federal project costs and

          (b)  has the legal, managerial and financial capability to
               insure adequate construction operation, and maintenance
               of the treatment works throughout the applicants juris-
               diction."
-------
     The financial assurances would have little basis unless those
served by the treatment works are informed of their costs.  The quality
review of facility plans during the past year has shown that many lack
financial information on non-Federal debt service or operation and
maintenance costs and that, even where such data are presented, these
costs are not usually translated into charges for a typical residential
customer.  Some EPA regions have indicated that most residents to be
served by grant funded treatment works will be unaware of their financial
obligations until construction of the works is 80% complete and user
charges have been determined.

     This problem would be eliminated and the goals of public partici-
pation served better by including an estimate of project costs to users
and taxpayers in the facility plan.  Such a public estimate would also
create a climate favoring careful consideration of the least cost alter-
natives, including greatest possible use of existing public and private
facilities.

III.  POLICY

     A.  Financial Information

     The facility plan shall present the cost information listed below.
These may be only rough estimates, and may be presented as a range of
possible costs when major unknowns exist such as whether or not sub-
stantial parts of the project are grant eligible.

     1. Estimated total capital costs for the recarmended treatment
works, a breakdown of estimated eligible and ineligible costs, and the
estimated Federal, State, local governmental and industrial shares of
the capital costs.

     2.  The expected method of local financing and estimated annual
debt service charges or taxes (based on the expected interest rate for
municipal borrowing) on the total local capital cost of the recommended
treatment works.

     3.  Estimated annual operation and maintenance costs and the es-
timated industrial and local government's shares thereof for the recom-
mended treatment works.

     4.  The estimated monthly charge for operation and maintenance, the
estimated monthly debt service charge, the estimated connection charge,
and the total monthly charge to a typical residential customer.
-------
     B.  Public Disclosure

     The above information for the proposed plan shall be presented
during the public hearing on the facility plan.

IV.
     Ihis policy shall apply to all facility plans for vfaich public
hearings are held on or after January 2, 1977.
-------
 \
 I   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 P                      WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                         3GT ! 4 197!
                              PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                              PRM 176 -4

SUBJECT:  Coordination of Construction Grants Program with
          EPA-Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Permit
          Programs

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators, I - X

ATTN:     Water Division Directors
PURPOSE

     A Section 404 or a Section 404/Section 10 permit for the discharge
of dredged or fill material may be required for the construction of EPA
assisted wastewater treatment facilities if they are to be built in
wetlands or other water areas.  This memorandum sets out EPA policy as
to the coordination of the construction grants and Section 404/Section
10 permit programs.  The Corps of Engineers has concurred with this
policy statement.

DISCUSSION

     The Corps of Engineers issues permits under Section 404 of P.L. 92-
500 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act which regulate the
discharge of dredged and fill material into navigable waters.  Under the
404 program, the Corps is responsible for issuing permits which must
conform with discharge criteria established in guidelines published by
EPA.  Additionally, EPA has authority under Section 404(c) to prohibit
the issuance of a 404 permit by the Corps if it determines the proposed
discharge will have an unacceptable adverse effect on certain environ-
mental areas.  Under the Section 10 program, the Corps has sole responsi-
bility for management of the program, and EPA does not have veto authority
over the issuance of a permit.

     The primary difference between the Section 404 and Section 10
programs is the extent of their jurisdiction over the various types of
water bodies including wetlands.  Jurisdiction under Section 404 extends
-------
to navigable waters, defined in Section 502(7) of P.L. 92-500 as "waters
of the United States, including the territorial seas". The United States
District Court for the District of Columbia in NRDC v._ Callavay, et al.,
392 F. Supp. 687, 7 EEC 1784 (D.D.C. March 27, 1975) has recently inter-
preted the statutory definition of navigable waters to extend 404 regu-
latory jurisdiction beyond the limits of traditional navigability.
Traditional navigability serves as the jurisdictional boundary for the
Corps Section 10 regulatory program under the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.  The discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the
United States" requires a Section 404 permit. A discharge into traditional
navigable waters will require a Section 10 permit as well as a 404
permit.  In cases where both types of permits are required, the Corps
will generally consolidate the requirements of both into a single document.
The issuance of a Section 10 permit is in most cases based on identical
criteria to the issuance of a 404 permit.

     The Corps has published interim final regulations governing the
issuance of 404 and Section 10 permits in 33 CFR Part 209.120, Permits
for Activities in Navigable Waters or Ocean Waters, Federal Register,
Vol. 40, No. 144, July 25, 1975.  EPA has published its discharge guide-
lines for 404 permits in 40 CFR Part 230, Discharge of Dredged or Fill
Material, Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 173, September 5, 1975, (in-
terim final).

     Generally, a 404 permit will be required for an activity involving
the discharge of dredged or fill material into most rivers, lakes and
streams, their tributaries and contiguous or adjacent wetlands, and into
coastal waters and their contiguous or adjacent wetlands.  A Section 10
permit will generally be required for discharges into wetlands below
mean high tide on coastal areas or into rivers, lakes and streams presently
or historically used or susceptible to use for navigation.  A detailed
definition of all water areas affected by the 404 and Section 10 require-
ments is found in 209.120(d) of the Corps regulation, 33 CFR Part 209.
Wetlands are defined generally as those areas that are periodically
inundated and that are characterized by the presence of aquatic vegetation.

     Section 404/Section 10 permits will be required for the placement
of fill material involved with the construction of treatment plants,
interceptors and other sewers, and outfall pipes if such facilities are
located in or cross over any of the water bodies or wetlands areas
listed above.  A Section 10 permit will also be required for the place-
ment of structures in traditional navigable waters, such as outfall
pipes, even if no discharge of dredged or fill material is required for
such structures.  The Corps regulations, however, provide for a phased
implementation of the 404 program over a two year period, and discharges
of fill material into certain water areas may not require a 404 permit
if conducted prior to certain dates.  Section 209.120(e) of the Corps
regulation describes the phased approach.  District offices of the Corps
should be contacted as to this.
-------
     Section 209.120(1)(2)(ix)  of the Corps regulations provides for the
issuance of general 404/Section 10 permits for "certain clearly defined
categories of structures or work, including discharges of dredged or
fill material	"  General permits may be issued on a statewide or
other areawide basis, and once issued, individual activities within
those categories and areas will not require the issuance of additional
permits provided that they are substantially similar in nature and cause
only minimal adverse individual or cumulative effects on the environment.
The construction of interceptor sewers and outfall pipes may be categories
of activities for which general permits could be issued in certain
areas.

     The Corps of Engineers applies a number of criteria to determine
whether a 404/Section 10 permit should be issued.  The general test
which the Corps uses in making its decision is based on a determination
of the probable impact of the proposed structure or work and its intended
use on the public interest.  Applications for permits for sewage treat-
ment facilities will be judged by the same standard.  In most cases, a
facility's beneficial environmental impacts on water quality should
support the issuance of a permit.  In some cases, however, significant
adverse environmental impacts of a project may merit the denial of a
permit and consideration of an alternative site proposal.

     EPA is required to conduct an evaluation of the environmental
impacts of its construction grants projects under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act.  The Corps must also comply with NEPA in issuing
Section 10 and Section 404 permits.  The Corps, however, will defer to
EPA as lead agency to conduct the NEPA evaluation, and where necessary,
EPA will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for construction
grants projects which also require a 404/Section 10 permit.  The EPA
evaluation, therefore, must address the environmental considerations
affecting the 404/Section 10 permit.  The Corps will review the EPA
evaluation and advise EPA of additional information for inclusion in the
evaluation necessary to make a 404/Section 10 determination.

IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE

     Regional offices should apply the following procedures to assure
early compliance with 404/Section 10 permit requirements for construction
grants projects:

     I.  Projects in Facility Planning Stage

          1.  Consultation with Corps

          All Step 1 grantees should be instructed to consult with the
Corps immediately upon identifying a project alternative which might re-
quire siting any portion of that project in a wetlands area or other
navigable waters.
-------
          Consultation should take place at the earliest possible stage
of the facility planning process.  The grantee should discuss with the
Corps whether a 404/Section 10 permit will be required and, if so:

               a.  Whether the Corps would be likely to issue a permit
               for dredged material or fill discharge in that area, or
               whether the Corps or other Federal and State agencies
               would favor an alternative location.

               b.  What environmental factors should be examined in the
               facility plan/environmental assessment which would provide
               the Corps with information necessary to make a final
               decision on the permit application after it is submitted.

     2.  404/Section 10 Application

     The Step 1 grantee should be instructed to submit a formal applica-
tion for a 404/Section 10 permit at the point in the facility planning
process that a final project alternative is selected involving a wetlands
or other navigable waters location.  The grantee should later notify the
Corps when the project facility plan has been approved by EPA.

     3.  Compliance with NEPA

     During the facility plan approval process, EPA should coordinate
its decision on whether to issue a notice of intent and prepare an EIS
or to issue a negative declaration with the Corps.  EPA has lead agency
responsibility for NEPA compliance for grants projects that also require
a 404/ Section 10 permit.  However, care should be taken to consult the
Corps as to all environmental issues surrounding a grants project in
order to avoid duplicative environmental reviews and to facilitate Corps
decision making on the 404/Section 10 permit.  The Corps may undertake
further NEPA review, however, if it needs additional environmental
information to make an informed decision on the 404/Section 10 permit
application.

     4.  EIS Preparation

     When an EIS is to be prepared on grants projects also requiring a
404/Section 10 permit, EPA will be responsible for its preparation as
the lead agency but should seek input from the Corps at all stages of
preparation and review of the EIS.

     5.  404/Section 10 Permit Requirement for Step 2 Grant

     When required, an issued 404/Section 10 permit or a determination
by the Regional Administrator that the Corps is prepared to issue a
404/Section 10 permit, shall be a prerequisite to the award of a Step 2
grant.
-------
     6.  EPA 404(b) and (c) review

     EPA review of 404 permit applications under 404 (b)  and (c) should
be coordinated with the grants program at the regional level to avoid
possible delays.  Regional Administrators are required to review all
404 permits issued for grants projects as well as non-EPA projects to
assure that the projects comply with the EPA 404 guidelines.  Conse-
quently, grant personnel should coordinate early with 404 program review
personnel to insure full consideration in the grants program of the
criteria used in the EPA 404 review and awareness in the 404 program of
the timing of the grants process.

     II.  Projects in Step 2 and 3 Stages

     For construction grants projects which have already proceeded past
the planning stage, EPA should insist that all grantees immediately con-
sult with the Corps to determine whether 404/Section 10 permits are
required for their projects.  When a 404/Section 10 permit is required,
EPA should work with the Corps and the grantee to expedite the permit
issuance process.

     III.  General Permits

     Regional offices should work with their States and the appropriate
Corps offices to investigate the possibilities of acquiring general
permits from the Corps for certain categories of interceptors and out-
falls which may have minimal environmental impacts for all grantees
within a State or within a certain area of a State.  General permits for
such activities may be properly considered for issuance by the District
Engineers under both Section 404 and Section 10.  Regional construction
grants personnel should coordinate their efforts in this area with the
regional EPA 404 offices.  Section 209.120(i)(2)(ix) of the Corps regu-
lations sets forth requirements for the issuance of general permits.
     Observance of these procedures should help to assure that the
Section 404/Section 10 permit requirements do not act as a source of
delays for the grants program.  It is particularly essential that the
Corps of Engineers be consulted early as to any potential 404/Section 10
problems.  Early consultations should help to maintain good working
relations between the two agencies and to expedite both the grants and
the 404/Section 10 permit programs.
-------
        \
I *&&) o   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
~L .^^^\IA^^^ ^
                              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                             PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                             PRM #76-5
SUBJECT:  Flood Insurance Requirements

FROM:     Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations
                                                /
     TO:       Regional Administrators
               ATTN:  Water Division Directors

     PURPOSE;

          This Program Requirements Memorandum 'summarizes National Flood In-
     surance Program requirements applicable to the construction grants
     program.  It supersedes Program Guidance Memoranda 25, 25A and 54.

     DISCUSSION;

          The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001-4127) as
     expanded and amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973  (P.L.
     93-234) provides for low cost flood insurance for projects in flood-
     prone areas through the means of a subsidy.  A prerequisite for this
     assistance is the enactment by local jurisdictions of certain minimum
     flood plain management measures to reduce or avoid future flood damage
     within their flood-prone areas.  When adequate flood plain management
     measures have been adopted and approved by the Department of Housing and
     Urban Development, HUD announces the community's eligibility for the
     sale of flood insurance and the community is then participating in the
     program.

          The HUD Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance Guidelines were
     printed in the Federal Register on July 17, 1974 (39 FR 26186-93), and
     were supplemented on April 14, 1975, (40 FR 16710).

     POLICY:

          The Act requires local jurisdictions encompassing designated special
     flood hazard areas to participate in the program and purchase flood
     insurance as a condition of receiving any form of Federal or Federally-
     related assistance for construction purposes or for the acquisition of
     any real or non-expendable personal property in an identified special
     flood hazard area if the total cost of such activities is $10,000
-------
per structure or more.   Each community has until one year after notifica-
tion of identification as a flood-prone community to enter the flood
insurance program (i.e., become a "participating" or "eligible" community)
or become ineligible for any Federal financial assistance for acquisition
or construction in the flood hazard area.

     A community which has not entered the flood insurance program with-
in one year after notification of flood-prone status will be ineligible
to receive a Step 3 grant until it does enter the program if the insura-
ble portion of the proposed project is in a designated flood hazard
area.

     Communities which have not yet been surveyed for flood-prone sta-
tus, or which have been surveyed but were notified of flood-prone status
less than a year before, do not have to be participating in the flood
insurance program to obtain a Step 3 grant.  Upon completion of the year
after the notification, however, each community in this latter category
must participate in the flood insurance program prior to obtaining any
further grants for construction in flood hazard areas.

     Grants may be awarded to non-participating communities where the
project is outside a designated area.

     Where the prospective grantee is a "participating" community but
the grant would include the construction of an insurable facility in a
designated area of a non-participating neighboring jurisdiction (and
more than a year has elapsed since identification of the flood hazard
area) the failure of the neighboring jurisdiction to participate in
flood insurance prevents the award of the grant.

IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE;

A.   Insurance Requirements

     Environmental Protection Agency grant regulations and procedures,
40 CFR 30.405-10, (40 FR 20232, May 8, 1975), require that the grantee
or the construction contractor (whichever party or parties has insurable
interest) must acquire any flood insurance made available to it under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, if the value of
insurable improvements is $10,000 per structure or more.  Such insurance
must be purchased beginning with the period of construction and maintained
for the entire useful life of the project.  HUD has interpreted the
statute as providing insurance only for grant projects involving a new
or reconstructed surface structure which is walled and roofed.

     The amount of insurance required is the total project cost, exclud-
ing facilities which are uninsurable under the National Flood Insurance
Program such as bridges, dams, water and sewer lines  (above or below
-------
ground) and underground structures and excluding the cost of the land,
or the maximum limit of coverage made available to the grantee under the
National Flood Insurance Act, whichever is less.  The present maximum
limit for non-residential structures is $200,000 on the structure and
$200,000 on contents.

     The grantee must certify, along with the first payment request in-
volving reimbursement for insurable construction, that he has purchased
the required flood insurance.  The evidence of such insurance must be
available at all times for submission to the Project Officer on request
or for review in the grantee's offices.

     Flood insurance is required for buildings during the course of
construction as well as for building materials or equipment stored in a
fully-enclosed structure adjacent to the building site, if the materials
or equipment are scheduled to be incorporated into structures which are
eligible for insurance.  The amount of flood insurance required at any
given time need not exceed the amount of the grantee's total disbursement
for insurable construction to date.  While underground structures are
not insurable, foundations and footings of a structure which is primarily
above-ground are insurable and are subject to the insurance purchase
requirement since they are the initial stages of construction of the
above-ground portions of the structure.

     If a Step 3 grant is made to a grantee which has previously been
assisted with respect to the same facility, the grantee must purchase
flood insurance on the previously assisted facility as well as on the
new construction.  The amount of flood insurance required should be
based upon its current value, however, and not on the amount of assist-
ance previously provided.

     Flood proofing does not eliminate nor reduce the requirement for
program participation or insurance but could affect the rate charged for
insurance.

     The required insurance premium for the period of construction is an
allowable project cost.

B.   List of Communities Ineligible for Step 3 Grants

     A cumulative list of ineligible communities (i.e. those which were
designated as flood-prone a year or more before but have not met the
above requirement and are therefore prohibited from receiving a Step 3
grant for projects in designated flood hazard areas)  is published during
the first week in each month by HUD in the Federal Register under the
title "National Flood Insurance Program, Flood-prone Areas of Communities
-------
Subject to July 1, 1975, Prohibition of Federal and Federally-Related
Assistance."  This list will also contain the names of the communities
that face a qualification deadline sometime during that month.  In
addition, an updated listing will be published on a weekly basis remov-
ing the names of those communities that have subsequently qualified.

     In addition, each Regional Office receives HUD's book-size monthly
list of communities participating, suspended, withdrawn and not parti-
cipating (with flood hazard area identified) in the program.  The Region-
al Office may request HUD/FIA Washington to place additional names on
the mailing list for this publication if more copies are needed.

C.   Regional Office Responsibilities

     The Regional Office shall discuss flood insurance requirements with
all grant applicants at the pre-application conference.  It should be
stressed that non-participating communities which have been designated
flood-prone for a year or more under the Flood Disaster Protection Act
will not be able to receive Step 3 grant assistance for a project in the
designated flood-prone area until they have entered the flood insurance
program, and that to qualify they must develop flood plain management
strategies in compliance with HUD guidelines as set forth in Title 24 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 10, Subchapter B, commencing at
Part 1909.  They will, however, be able to receive grant funds for Steps
1 and 2 without such participation.

     Each region has the responsibility to make each community with a
Step 1 or Step 2 grant aware of the National Flood Insurance Program and
its requirements relative to Step 3 grant assistance.

     Before awarding any Step 3 grant, the region shall check the most
current list of ineligible communities and communities about to become
ineligible to determine if the applicant or grant project is among them.

D.   Environmental Impact of Projects on Flood Plains

     The environmental impact of projects on flood plains should be
analyzed in accordance with other facility planning guidance.

E.   Sources of Maps and Other Program Information

     Flood hazard areas are shown on Flood Hazard Boundary Maps or Flood
Insurance Rate Maps issued by HUD at intervals-.  These maps are maintained
on file within each eligible community in a repository designated by the
chief executive officer.  Maps, literature and policy application forms
and manuals are available from any National Flood Insurers Association
-------
servicing company.  HUD Regional Flood Insurance Specialists are located
in each HUD Regional Office and should be utilized by EPA personnel to
answer questions relating directly to the operation of the flood insurance
program.  Addresses of HUD Regional Flood Insurance Specialists and
State Coordination Agencies for Flood Insurance are attached as a portion
of the EPA Grants Information Guide, National Flood Insurance Program.
If these sources cannot assist, contact the Federal Insurance Administra-
tion, HUD, Washington, D.C. 20410, 202-755-5581 or toll free 800-424-
8872 or 8873.

F.   Assistance From Headquarters

     Any questions on the application of the policy to specific projects
should be referred to the Facility Requirements Branch, (202-426-9404),
Office of Water Program Operations or to the Grants Policy and Procedures
Branch (202-755-0860), Grants Administration Division, 0PM.
Attachment
REFERENCES:

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001-4127)
The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)
HUD Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance Guidelines, 1974, (39 FR
     26186-93), (40 FR-16710)
EPA Grant Regulations and Procedures (40 FR 20232, May 8, 1975)
     (40 CFR 30.405-10)
National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Prone Areas of Communities
     Federal Register-Monthly
Title 24, CFR, Chapter 10, Subchapter B, 1909-
-------

    'U'B- BCi^'V'iR.oisrx^iDisrTA.JL* apnoTHicTiON  .A. CUE N
                                             r. p.c. ao-ieo
                  a- 1?, AN TO
                    NATIONAL FLOOD  INSURANCE  PROGRAM
General

     The National Flood Insurance Program is  a Federally-subsidized
program authorized by the National Flood Insurance  Act  of  1968  (42
U.S.C. 4001-4127) to-protect property owners  who previously had been
unable to get coverage through the private insurance industry.  It is
administered by the Federal Insurance Administration, Department  of
Housing and Urban Development.  The program,  for the first time,
made flood insurance available to individuals at affordable rates.  In
return for the Federal subsidy, State and local governments are required
to adopt certain minimum floodplain management measures to reduce or
avoid future flood damage within their floodprone areas.

     The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234,  December  31,
1973) greatly expanded the available limits of flood insurance  coverage
and imposed additional requirements on property owners and communities.

     The Act required the purchase of flood insurance on and  after
March 2, 1974, as a condition of receiving any form of Federal or
Federally-related assistance  for construction purposes or for the acquisition
of any real or nonexpendable.personal property in an identified special flood
hazard area that is located within any community currently participating in
 the National Flood Insurance  Program.  A  "participating community,"  also
known as an  "eligible community," is a community in which the Federal
 Insurance  Administration has  authorized, the sale of flood insurance under
 the National Flood Insurance  Program.

      For any community  that was  not  participating  in the  program at the
 time  the assistance was  approved,  the statutory requirement  for  the purchase
 of flood insurance did  not apply.  However, beginning  July 1, 1975, or one
 year  after notification of identification as  a  flood-prone community,
 whichever  is  later,  the requirement  applies  to  all identified special
 flood hazard  areas within  the United States,  which have been delineated
 on Flood Hazard Boundary Maps or Flood  Insurance Rate  Maps issued by
 the Department of  Housing  and Urban  Development.   Thereafter, no EPA
 financial  assistance can legally be  approved  for real  or  nonexpendable
 personal property or for construction purposes  in  these areas unless
 the community has entered  the program and flood insurance is purchased.

 Regulations

      HUD regulations governing the National Flood  Insurance  Program
 are set forth in Title 24 of  the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter  10,
 Subchapter B, commencing at Part 1909.
  Supersedes  information sheet                 IBOVIO Data:
  dated August  8,  1974                         Oro-ntn Information Branch
-------
     The final EPA general grant regulations  published  on the
Federal Register on May 8, 1974, include the  requirements for  the
purchase of flood insurance as a condition of EPA assistance  (40 CFR
30.405-10.)

EPA Grantee Requirements

     1. Wastewater treatment construction grants.

     The grantee or the construction contractor,  as appropriate, must
acquire flood insurance made available to it  under the  National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, beginning  with the period  of construction
and maintain such insurance for the entire useful life  of the  project  if
the total value of insurable improvements is  $10,000 or more.   The
amount of insurance required is the total project cost, excluding
facilities which are uninsurable under the National Flood Insurance
Program and excluding the cost of the land, or the maximum limit
of coverage made available to the grantee under the National  Flood
Insurance Act, whichever is less.  The required insurance premium
for the period of construction is an allowable project  cost.

     2. Other grant programs.

     The grantee must acquire and maintain any flood insurance made
available  to it under the National Flood Insurance Act  of 1968, as
amended, if the approved project includes  (a) any incidental  construction-type
activity,  or  (b) any acquisition of real or nonexpendable personal property,
and the total cost of such activities and acquisitions  is $10,000  or  more.
The amount of insurance required is the total cost of any insurable,
nonexpendable personal or real property acquired, improved, or
constructed, excluding the cost of land, as a direct cost under the grant,
or the maximum limit of coverage made available to the  grantee under
the National Flood Insurance Act» as amended, whichever is less,  for
the entire useful life of the property.  The required insurance premium
for the period of project support is an allowable project cost.

     If EPA provides financial  assistance  for nonexpendable personal  property
to a grantee  that the Agency has previously assisted with respect  to .real
estate at  the same facility in  the same location, EPA must require flood
insurance  on  the previously-assisted building as well as on the personal
property.  The amount of  flood  insurance required on the building  should
be based upon its current value, however,  and not on the amount of assistance
previously provided.

Sources of insurance  policies,  maps, and program information

     1.  Insurance policies under  the National Flood Insurance Program
can be  obtained  from  any  licensed  property insurance agent or broker
serving  the eligible  community,  or  from  the National Flood Insurers
Association  (NFIA) servicing  company for  the  State.  A current listing
of servicing  companies  is enclosed.
                                  (2)
-------
     2.   Flood Hazard  Boundary Maps are the l irs t nups prepared  in Liu;
identification-process.   These indicate the; .locations of identified
special  flood hazard areas and are always m,-i intained on file within each
eligible (participating)  community in a repository designated by the mayor
or chief executive officer,  usually the building  inspector's office or
the city clerk's office.   The address of such repository is published
at 24 CFR 1914 and is.amended regularly in the Federal Register.
The Flood Insurance Rate  Maps are issued later following a detailed study
of the flood hazard area.  These maps delineate degrees of flood hazard
and include more precise  area identification.

     3.   Maps, literature, and policy application forms and manuals
are available for distribution from any NFIA servicing company.   The servicing
companies are also equipped to answer questions on eligibility of communities,
scope of coverage, and maximum amounts of insurance available witti respect
to particular types of buildings.

     4.   Questions that cannot be answered by individual agents  or brokers
or by the appropriate  servicing company may be referred to the National
Flood Insurers Association, 1755 Jefferson Davis Highway, Alexandria, Va. ,
22202, telephone 703-920-2070; to the flood insurance representative at the
nearest  HUD regional office (list enclosed); or to the Federal Insurance
Administration, HUD, Washington, D.C.  20410, 202-755-5581, or toll free
800-424-8872  (8873).

     5.   Communities may obtain assistance from the appropriate State
Coordinating Agency in adopting the required flood plain management
regulations and qualifying for the program.  A list of the State Coordinating
Agencies is also attached.

     6.   Copies of statutes, program regulations, and community eligibility
application forms may be obtained from HUD regional offices or directly
from the Federal Insurance Administration in Washington, D. C.
                                  (3)
-------
                Department of Housing And Urban Development
                   REGIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE SPECIALISTS
REGION I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room IjOjA
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Telephone:  (61?) 223-2616 or 2709
(For Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)

REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 1000?
Telephone:  (212) 26k-kl5& or 8021
(For New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico)

REGION III
Curtis Building
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Telephone:  (215) 597-9581
(For Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
West Virginia)

REGION IV
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone:  (iJoU) 526-2391
(For Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)

REGION V
300 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone:  (312) 353-0757
(For Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)

REGION VI
New Federal Building
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone:  (2lU) 7U9-7U12
 (For Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexic o, Oklahoma, Texas)
REGION VII
Federal Office Building
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Missouri 6^106
Telephone:  (8l6) 37li-2l6l
(For Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska)

REGION VIII
Federal Building
1961 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone:  (303) 837-23^7
(For Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming)

REGION IX
1^50 Golden-Gate Avenue
P. 0. Box 36003
San Francisco, California 9U102
Telephone:  pending
(For Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada)

REGION X
Room 3068 Arcade Plaza Building
1321 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washing-ton 98101
Telephone:  (206) 1^2-1026
(For Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington)
                                  (4)
-------
              Department of Housing And Urban Development
            STATE COORDINATING AGENCIES FOR FLOOD INSURANCE
ALABAMA
Alabama Development Office
Office of State Planning
State Office Building
501 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, ^Alabama 36lOl|

ALASKA
Department of Community and
 Regional Affairs
Division of Community Planning
Pouch B
Juneau, Alaska 99811

ARIZONA
Arizona State Land Department
1621; W. Adams, Room UOO
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

ARKANSAS
Division of Soil and Water
 Resources
State Department of Commerce
1920 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

CALIFORNIA
Department of Water Resources
Post Office Box 388
Sacramento, California 95802

COLORADO
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Room 102
181|5 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203

CONNECTICUT
Department of Environmental
 Protection
Division of Water and Related
 Resources
Room 207, State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06115

DELAWARE
Division of Soil and Water
 Conservation
Department of Natural Resources
 and Environmental Control
Tatnall Building, Capitol
Dover, Delaware 19901
FLORIDA
Department of Community Affairs
2571 Executive Center Circle East
Howard Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

GEORGIA
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Planning and Research
270 Washington Street, S. W. Rm. 707
Atlanta, Georgia 3033U

HAWAII
Division of Water and Land
 Development
Department of Land and Natural
 Resources
P. 0. Box 373
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809

IDAHO
Department of Water Administration
State House - Annex 2
Boise, Idaho 83707

ILLINOIS
Governor's Task Force on Flood
 Control
300 North State St.
P. 0. Box [;75, Rm- 1010
Chicago, Illinois 60610

INDIANA
Division of Water
'Department of Natural Resources
608 State Office Building
Indianapolis, Indiana l4620l|

IOWA
Iowa Natural Resources Council
James W. Grimes Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319

KANSAS
Division of Water Resources
State Department of Agriculture
State Office Building
Topeka, Kansas 66612

KENTUCKY
Division of Water
Kentucky Department of Natural
 Resources
Capitol Plaza Office Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky L|0601
-------
LOUISIANA
State Department of Public Works
P. 0. Box 14*155
Capitol Station
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 7080/4.

MAINE
Office of Civil Emergency
 Preparedness
State House
Augusta, Maine 01+330

MARYLAND
Department of Natural Resources
Water Resources Division
State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 211;01

MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Water Resources
Water Resources Commission
State Office Building
100  Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202

MICHIGAN
Water Resources Commission
Bureau  of Water Management
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan U8926

MINNESOTA
Division of Waters, Soils-and
  Minerals
Department  of Natural Resources
 Centennial  Office Building
 St.  Paul, Minnesota 55101

 MISSISSIPPI
 Mississippi Research  and Develop-
  ment  Center
 P. 0.  Drawer  21*70
 Jackson, Mississippi  39205

 MISSOURI
 Department  of Natural Resources
 Division of Program and Policy
  Development
 State of Missouri
 308 East High Street
 Jefferson,  Missouri 65101
MONTANA
Montana Dept. of Natural Resources
 and Conservation
Water Resources Division
32 South Swing Street
Helena, Montana 59601

NEBRASKA
Nebraska Natural Resources.
 Commission
Terminal Building, 7th Floor
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

NEVADA
Division of Water Resources'
Department of Conservation
 and Natural Resources
Nye Building
Carson City, Nevada 89701

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Division of Community Planning
State House Annex
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

NEW JERSEY
Bureau of Water Control
Department of Environmental
 Protection
P. 0, Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

NEW MEXICO
State Engineer's Office
Bataan Memorial Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

NEW YORK
New York State Department of
 Environmental Conservation
Division of Resources Management
 Services
Bureau of Water Management
Albany, New York 12201

NORTH CAROLINA
Division of Community Assistance
Department of Natural &
 Economic Resources
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
                                   (6)
-------
NORTH DAKOTA
State Vater Commission
State Office Building
900 E. Boulevard
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501

OHIO
Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources
Flood Insurance Coor. Building
Fountain Square
Columbus, Ohio U322U

OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
22U1 Northwest Fortieth Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112

OREGON
Executive Department
State of Oregon
Salem, Oregon 97310

PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Community Affairs
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

PUERTO RICO
Puerto Rico Planning Board
1570 Ponce de Leon Avenue
Stop 22
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908

RHODE ISLAND
R. I. Statewide Planning Program
265 Melrose Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02907

SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Water Resources
 Commission
P. 0. Box 1+515
Columbia, South Carolina 292l;0

SOUTH DAKOTA
State Planning Bureau
Office of Executive Management
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
TENNESSEE
Tennessee State Planning Office
660 Capitol Hill Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

TEXAS
Texas Water Development Board
P. 0. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

UTAH
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
State Capibol Building, Rm. k3S
Salt Lake City, Utah 81*111*

VERMONT
Management & Engineering Division
Water Resources Department
State Office Building
Montpellier, Vermont 05602

VIRGINIA
Bureau of Water Control
 Management
State Water Control Board
Post Office Box 1111+3
Richmond, Virginia 23230

WASHINGTON
Department of Ecology
OlympjLa, Washington 98501

WEST VIRGINIA
Office of Federal-State Relations
Division of Planning & Development
Capitol Building, Rm. 150
Charleston, West" Virginia 25305

WISCONSIN
Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box i|50
Madison, Wisconsin 53701

WYOMING
Wyoming Disaster and Civil
 Defense Agency
P. 0. Box 1709
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
                                   (7)
-------
               Department of Housing And Urban Development
                    National Flood Insurance .Program
                    List of Servicing Company Offices
                              March 1, 1975
ALABAMA                                       DELAWARE
The Hartford Insurance Group                  General Accident F & L Assurance
Hartford Building                              Corp. Ltd.
100 Edgewood Avenue                           1+11+ Walnut Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30301                        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone:  (1|OU) 021-2009                        Phone:  (21$) 238-0000
ALASKA
Industrial Indemnity Co. of Alaska
P. 0. Box 307
Anchorage, Alaska 99010
Phone:  (907) 279-9^41

ARIZONA
Aetna Technical Services Inc.
Suite 903
3003 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 80012
Phone: (602) 26U-2621

ARKANSAS
The Travelers Indemnity Company
700 South University
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
P. 0. Box 51
Phone: (001) 661+-0080

CALIFORNIA-NORTHERN
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
 Companies
P. 0. Box 3136
San Francisco, California 9UH9
Phone:  (1*15) 1+21-1676

CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
 Companies
P. 0. Box 2323
Los Angeles, California 90001
Phone:  (213) 381-311*1

COLORADO
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln-Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 266-0061

CONNECTICUT
Aetna Insurance Company
P. 0. Box 1779
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Phone:   (203) 023-1+861
FLORIDA
The Travelers Indemnity Company
1016 East Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone: (300) 896-2001

GEORGIA
The Hartford Insurance Group
Hartford Building
100 Edgewood Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Phone: (1+01+) 021-2009

HAWAII
First Insurance Co. of Hawaii, Ltd.
P. 0. Box 2866
Honolulu, Hawaii 96803
Phone: (808) 01+8-011

IDAHO
Aid Insurance Company
Snake River Division
181+0 Federal Way
Boise, Idaho 83701
Phone:   (208) 31+3-493!

ILLINOIS
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Illinois Regional Office
2309 E.  Oakland Avenue
Bloomington, Illinois 61701
Phone:   (309) 007-7211

INDIANA
United Farm Bureau  Mutual Insurance  Co.
130 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 1+6201+
Phone:   (317) 263-7200

IOV/A
Employers Mutual Casualty Company
P. 0. Box 881+
DesHoines, Iowa 00301;
Phone:  (010) 280-2011
                                    (8)
-------
KANSAS
Royal-Globe Insurance Companies
1125 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 6I;lUl
Phone:  '(816) 81+2-6116

KENTUCKY
CNA Insurance
580 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio U5202
Phone:  (513) 621-710?

LOUISIANA
Aetna Technical Services, Inc.
P. 0. Box 61003
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
Phone:  (50)4) 821-1511

MAINE
Commercial Union Insurance Company
c/o Campbell, Payson & Noyes
27 Pearl St., Box 527 Pearl St. Station
Portland, Maine OUH6
Phone:  (207) 77U-1U31

MARYLAND
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company
P. 0.-Box 1138
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Phone:  (301) 539-0380

MASSACHUSETTS-EASTERN
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1 Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Phone:  (617) 725-6128

MASSACHUSETTS-WESTERN
Aetna Insurance Company
P.O. Box 1779
Hartford, Connecticut 06101

MICHIGAN
Insurance Company of North America
Room 300-Buhl Building
Griswold & Congress Streets
Detroit, Michigan 1482-26
Phone:  (313) 963-lillU
MINNESOTA-EASTERN
The St. Paul Fire & Marine
 Company
P. 0. Box 3U70'
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
Phone:  (612) 222-7751

MINNESOTA-WESTERN
The St. Paul Fire & Marine 1
 Company
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55U31
Phone:  (612) 835-2600

MISSISSIPPI
The Travelers Indemnity Compai
5360 Interstate 55 North
P.- 0. Box 2361
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Phone:  (601) 956-5600

MISSOURI-EASTERN
MFA Insurance Companies
1817 West Broadway
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Phone:  (3lU) kk$-Qk&-

MISSOURI-WESTERN
Royal-Globe Insurance Companies
1125 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 6l4li*l
Phone: . (816) 81*2-6116

MONTANA
The Home Insurance Company
8 Third Street N.-P.O. Box 1031
Great Falls, Montana 59^01
Phone:  (1+06) 761-8110

NEBRASKA
Royal-Globe Insurance Companies
1125 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 6l4ll|l
Phone: (8l6) 81*2-6116

NEVADA
The Hartford Insurance Group
P. 0. Box 500
Reno, Nevada 895014
Phone:  (702) 329-1061
                                    (9)
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Commercial Union Insuranc.e Company
1 Beacon" Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Phone:  (61?) 725-6128

NEW JERSEY
Great American Insurance Company
5 Dakota Drive
Lake Success, New York 110UO
Phone:  (201) 22i|-i;200

NEW MEXICO
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln St., Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone:  (303) 266-0561

NEW YORK
Great American Insurance Company
5 Dakota Drive
Lake Success, New York 110^0
Phone:  (5l6) 775-6900

NORTH CAROLINA
Kemper Insurance
1229 Greenwood Cliff
Charlotte, North Carolina  2820i|
Phone:  (70!*) 372-7150

NORTH DAKOTA
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
 Company
25U Hamm Building
U08 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone:   (612) 227-9581

OHIO-NORTHERN
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1300 East 9th St.
Cleveland, Ohio likllk
Phone: (216) 522-1060

OHIO-SOUTHERN
CNA Insurance
580 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio [(5202
Phone:   (513) 621-7107
OKLAHOMA
K''public-Van£uard Insurance Group
J\ 0. Box 3000
Dallas, Texas 75221
Phone:  (2lU) 528-0301

OREGON
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
U600 25In Avenue, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97303
Phone:  (503) 393-0101

PENNSYLVANIA
General Accident F & L Assurance
 Corp., Ltd.
klk Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone:  (215) 238-5512

PUERTO RICO
I.S.O. of Puerto Rico
Penthouse 7th Ochoa Bldg.
7th floor, P.O. Box 1333
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902
Phone:  (809) 723-0000

RHODE ISLAND
American Universal Insurance Co.
l[|i|. Wayland Avenue
Providence, Rhode Island 0290U
Phone:  (IjOl) 351 -1(600

SOUTH CAROLINA
Maryland Casualty Company
P. 0. Box -11615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Phone:  (?OU) 525-8330

SOUTH DAKOTA
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
25U Hamm Building
i|08 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone:  (612) 227-9581

TENNESSEE
CNA Insurance
110-21st Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Phone:  (6l5) 327-0061
                                     (10)
* U.S. Government Printing Office: 1976-777-389/26 Region 8
-------
   \
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                 NOV 2 3 1976

                             CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                             Program Requirements Memorandum No. 77-1


SUBJECT:  Treatment Works for Recreational Parks, Industrial Parks
          and Institutions

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant AdministratoisQ!^ Kvt  I  fc^VL&if
          for Water Program (Derations  (WH-546)        f

TO:       Regional Administrators   I  - X

ATTN:     Water Division Directors

I.  PURPOSE

     This memorandum confirms Agency policy on construction grant funding
of treatment works which have as their primary or exclusive purpose
providing service for recreational parks, industrial parks or insti-
tutions such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and nursing homes.

II.  DISCUSSION

     Applications for grants for vastewater treatment projects for
recreational parks, industrial parks, schools and various other in-
stitutions have been received in several regions.  Regions have asked
whether these projects should receive Federal assistance while facility
needs and permit conditions for existing ccmmunities remain unmet.

     It is the policy of this Agency, consistent with P.L. 92-500, to
assign highest priority to the provision of grant assistance for waste-
water treatment works to reduce pollution from the backlog of existing
municipal wastewater discharges.  Program Guidance Memorandum (SAM-9)
reaffirms this objective, stating that construction grant funds are
intended to be used primarily for the abatement of existing pollution
rather than for the treatment of expected future wastewater flows. As a
means of attaining this objective, the above memorandum requires that
the major priority system criterion, "population affected" be defined as
that population presently existing within the affected area.

III.  RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
     This memorandum is concerned with the preparation of State project
priority lists and the Agency's existing policy with respect to the
funding of treatment works for recreational parks, industrial parks or
-------
institutions insofar as it concerns the ranking of projects on State
project priority lists.  This memorandum does not affect the Agency's
requirements concerning the eligibility of grantees or the eligibility
of projects for the treatment of industrial wastes.  The Agency's regu-
lations define eligible grantees, municipalities, in 40 CFR S35.905-14
and indicate that certain grant applicants, such as a school district
which does not have as one of its principal responsibilities the treat-
ment, transport, or disposal of liquid wastes, would not be eligible for
grant assistance.  The Agency's regulations in 40 CFR 835.925-15 state
the costs for facilities for the treatment of industrial wastes are not
allowable unless the grantee-applicant is required to remove such
pollutants from non-industrial sources and the project is included in a
waste treatment system with the principal purpose of providing treatment
for domestic wastes of an entire area. The Agency may continue to deny
grant assistance to such grantee applicants or for such projects irrespective
of and independent of its consideration of State project priority lists
and review of individual grant applications inconsistent with the Agency's
policies regarding priority lists set forth in this memorandum.

IV.  POLICY

     A.  Objectives

     Wastewater treatment projects designed to serve proposed recreational
parks, industrial parks, and institutions such as schools, hospitals,
prisons and nursing homes are not to be grant funded until existing
needs for pollution control have been met.  Treatment works projects
which have as their primary or exclusive purpose providing service for
existing parks or institutions are not to be grant funded unless their
construction is necessary to alleviate a serious, existing pollution
problem and the individual projects are justified by a rigorous case-by-
case application of the primary priority system criteria  (i.e., the
severity of pollution problems, the size of the existing population
affected, and the need for the preservation of high quality waters.)

     B.  State Responsibilities

     To achieve the above objectives, EPA will confirm and strengthen
its existing policy by requiring states to do the following:

      (1)  Apply the "existing population affected" criterion rigorously
in the preparation of state project priority lists to exclude from
fundable ranking treatment works projects which have as their primary or
exclusive purpose providing service for proposed recreation parks,
industrial parks, and institutions, until projects meeting the criterion
have been funded.
-------
      (2)  Strictly apply the priority criteria cited in the above
presentation of EPA's objectives on a case-by-case basis to projects
designed to control existing pollution problems created by existing
paries and institutions.

      (3)  Review grant applications, including plans of study and
facility plans, for individual projects to further assure compliance
with the above priority list requirements.

     C.  EPA Responsibilities

     EPA will confirm and strengthen its existing policy by doing the
following:

      (1)  Exclude any projects failing to comply with the requirements
set forth in the prior section concerning a State's responsibilities in
the preparation of the State project priority list prior to the approval
of the State project priority list.

      (2)  Review grant applications for individual projects to further
assure compliance with the requirements set forth in the prior section
concerning a State's responsibility in reviewing individual grant
applications and reject any applications failing to meet these require-
ments.  States and grant applicants mast continue to recognize that EPA
approval of Step 1 funding does not constitute a carmitment for the
award of Step 2 grant assistance.

V.  IMPLEMENTATIOSI

     The States are to be advised of the Agency's confirmation and
extension of its policy with regard to this subject area at once. The
States will be requested to begin immediately to review individual grant
applications to implement the requirements set forth above outlining
State responsibilities to assure compliance with EPA's policy and to
reject non-conforming applications.  EPA will continue to confirm and
strengthen its existing policy and review individual grant applications
to further assure compliance with those requirements. The Regional
Administrator, at his discretion, may review existing State project
priority lists and will review forthcoming priority lists to bring them
into conformance with the above-outlined objectives and the requirements
set forth above concerning State responsibilities.

VI.  REE'KKENCES

     A.  40 CFR §35.914(c)(1), State Determination of project priority
lists; project priority list.

     B.  Program Guidance Memorandum:  SAM-9, State Priority Systems
Used in the Development of State Project Priority Lists, September 29,
1975.
-------
                           4



C.  40 CFR 835.905-14 Municipality.



D.  40 CFR S35.925-15 Treatment of industrial wastes.
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                             November 29, 1976
                                                           OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                           HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                             CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
                                             REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                             PRM #77-2

SUBJECT:  Grant Eligibility of Start-up Services

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)         /

TO:       Regional Administrators  I  -  X
          ATTN:  Water Division Directors


_PyRPOSE:  The purpose of this memorandum is to identify specific services,
rendered during the start-up period of a new treatment works, that are
eligible for grant funding.  Such services will help assure that municipal
treatment works will achieve operational  objectives more rapidly and
effectively.

DISSUSSION:  In response to a recognized need to place increased emphasis
on the effective operation of new waste treatment facilities constructed
with Federal grant funds, it has been determined that the cost of certain
services provided during the plant start-up period shall be eligible
for grant support.  Such services are intended to assure that:  design
operational efficiency is achieved as quickly as possible; process
control and related equipment problems are identified and resolved;
onsite instruction to personnel in details of the process and equipment
of each particular plant is provided, and final revisions to the O&M
manual, based upon actual operating experience, are made.

POLICY:  This PRM confirms eligibility for start-up services under
the following terms and conditions.  Start-up services for new
wastewater treatment works constructed with contract authority funds
are eligible for grant support in accordance with the following
guidance.
-------
     Grant eligible start-up services will average 90 man-days for
most treatment plants.  For large or complex plants, however, grant
eligible start-up services may range up to 300 man-days.  Start-up
services shall be completed within a period of twelve months.  In
addition to grant eligible start-up services, grantees, in most cases,
should be encouraged to negotiate separate agreements for technical and
training services to identify and solve operational problems beyond the
initial start-up period.  However, only that period of time which con-
forms with guidance provided herein will be eligible for grant assistance.

     Grant eligible start-up services are limited to those items described
below.  (Other services proposed for grant eligibility will be considered
only on a case-by-case basis by the Regional Administrator.)  The extent
of such services will depend on the size and complexity of the facility
and the capabilities of existing or new operational and management staff.
In many cases services to address the potential needs below may be coupled
with other related services.  To be grant eligible, the services must be
rendered by the design engineer or others identified by the design engineer.

     1.  Pre and post start-up personnel training--!'.e., onsite training
given plant operation and maintenance personnel on the operation and
control of the specific treatment processes of the facility as well as
specialized training required for the safe operation and maintenance
of plant equipment.

     It could also include consultation on the staffing and training
plan before completion of construction.  Such consultation would be
supplemental to the O&M manual and intended to give plant personnel a
clear understanding of individualized operational and management
responsibilities.  Grant eligible training and related consultation are
not to be a substitute for routine, entry-level or update operator train-
ing, the funding of which is the responsibility of the grantee.

     2.  Fine tuning to optimize process control—i.e., expert operational
assistance for adjustment and "fine tuning" of the treatment processes
and related equipment functions to optimize performance, safety and
reliability under actual operating conditions.  This should include
the detailing of operational procedures under both normal and abnormal
conditions so as to achieve consistent, reliable, and efficient perfor-
mance from each process component at all times.
-------
     3.  Laboratory procedures--!.e., onsite training and instruction
to assure that the sampling and laboratory testing program needed for
satisfactory process control and regulatory monitoring and reporting
are fully understood.  Entry-level  or update training in basic laboratory
testing and procedures for routine analyses are not grant eligible,
although training in unique testing requirements related to some unusual
unit process or process equipment may be determined to be grant eligible.

     4.  Maintenance management system--i.e., start-up services to
assure effective implementation of the maintenance management system
outlined in the facility's O&M manual.  Included is training of the
operation and maintenance staff in the details of the maintenance
management system to establish and maintain a preventive maintenance
program.

     5.  Records management systerns--i.e., services to provide the
training needed to implement a records management system as outlined
in the O&M manual.  It will become a major element in the larger and
more complex plants that require a refined system to adequately handle
records related to process control, effluent quality monitoring and
reporting requirements, inventories for chemicals, supplies, and spare
parts, etc.

     6.  Revise O&M manual—i.e., revising the O&M manual based upon
actual operating experience obtained during the start-up period.  It
is not intended to replace the present requirements for drafting and
finalizing the O&M manual before plant start-up, but does recognize
that some aspects of plant operation and process control can be
documented more fully after a period of actual plant operation.

     Note that costs normally associated with the operation and main-
tenance of a municipal  wastewater treatment facility, such as salaries
for operation and maintenance personnel, chemicals (except for the basic
inventory required for start-up), power, etc., are not eligible.  Also
ineligible are the costs of all off-site formal training/orientation
programs.  Finally, wet and dry equipment and facility testing is the
responsiblity of the contractor under the supervision of the Engineer.
-------
IMPLEMENTATION:   Start-up service provisions should normally be submitted
as part of a "Step 3 grant,  and State agencies and potential  Step 3  gran-
tees should be encouraged to consider the development of appropriate
provisions as soon as possible.   For existing Step 3 projects that have
not begun actual  plant operations, grantees should be encouraged, where
timing permits,  to develop  start-up service provisions prior to plant start-up.
Under exceptional circumstances,  consideration may be given  to eligibility
of start-up services for grant funded projects that have already begun
operation but for which the Step  3 grant has not been closed out.  However,
reimbursement should not be made  for start-up services completed prior to
the effective date of this  PRM unless specifically described in existing
contract documents.
-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                 2 9  1971
                                                         OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                         HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                        CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                        PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                        PRM #77-3
SUBJECT:  Plan of Operation for Municipal  Wastewater
          Treatment Facilities
FROM:     John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional  Administrators  I - X
          Attn:  Water Division Directors
                                                      n^
                                                       J
PURPOSE

This memorandum provides guidance on preparing a Plan of Operation for
municipal wastewater treatment facilities being constructed, modified,
or expanded under the Construction Grants program.

DISCUSSION

Section 204(a)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
(PL 92-500) requires all municipal wastewater treatment facilities
constructed with Federal funds to have a Plan of Operation.   This memorandum
contains guidance for the development of such a Plan.  Additional details
on this requirement can be found in 40 CFR 35.935-12 of the  Federal
Register.

A Plan of Operation is intended to identify specific actions and related
completion dates to assure that the facility and all associated personnel
are properly prepared for start-up and continued operation.   Actions
identified will be responsive to all technical and administrative
requirements for efficient and reliable performance, including all such
elements outlined in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual.  A Plan
of Operation is not intended to supplant the O&M Manual, which provides
long-term guidance for efficient facility operation and maintenance, but
rather summarizes the actions necessary to assure that all  steps required
-------
for start-up and operation are taken at the appropriate times.   The Plan
of Operation provides detail  on such matters as who will  perform the
necessary tasks, when and how they will be undertaken, and, where
necessary, the nature of each task. For example, the O&M Manual  will
indicate the staffing and personnel training needs for the facility; the
Plan of Operation will contain the actual  schedule to be followed for
hiring and/or training those personnel.

POLICY

Plans of Operation must be submitted and approved to meet requirements
of Section 204(a)(4) of PL 92-500 and 40 CFR 35.935-12.  Content of the
Plans of Operation and timing for completion and submittal should follow
the guidance of this Memorandum and the attachments thereto.  The Plan
of Operation shall provide a concise, sequential description of, and
implementation schedule for, those activities necessary to assure cost-
effective, efficient and reliable start-up and continued operation of
the facility.  The cost of preparing a Plan of Operation is grant eligible
and should be identified as a separate line item in the project costs.

IMPLEMENTATION

Municipal wastewater treatment facility construction projects vary
considerably in size and complexity, and the degree of detail in a Plan
of Operation should reflect this variation.  The Plan of Operation must
be tailored to the specific needs of each individual project.  The basic
guidance document for the development of a Plan of Operation is Federal
Guidelines - Operation and Maintenance of_ Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
published by EPA in August 1974. Application of this guidance to the
development of a Plan of Operation is discussed in Attachment "A" to
this PRM entitled "Basic Considerations in the Development of a Plan of
Operation for Wastewater Treatment Plants."

A "sample" Plan of Operation is presented in Attachment B. This sample
illustrates one format for a Plan. The action items shown are not all-
inclusive, nor does each of these items necessarily apply to every
project.  An alternative format would be a time based chart that displays
graphically the time span over which items would be completed.  In this
case appropriate narrative should be included to provide a full understanding
of each area of activity.  Reference to the O&M manual should be utilized
whenever possible to avoid duplication.

Hereafter, grantees should submit a preliminary Plan of Operation along
with the construction plans and specifications.  This preliminary Plan
of Operation should be reviewed by the State Water Pollution Control
Agency concurrently with the review of project plans and specifications.
If the plan is incomplete or in need of corrections, resolution should
be accomplished in the same way that problems encountered in the processing
of plans and specifications are now resolved. Certain information needed
to complete a Plan of Operation, particularly the timing for implementing
certain items, will not be known until the construction phase of the
-------
project is underway.  In a preliminary Plan, therefore, it may be necessary
to define implementation schedules either in terms of an estimated
percent of completion of construction, or in terms of a certain number
of days before an operational start date.  In fact, it may not be possible
to identify all necessary actions related to operations in the preliminary
Plan, although it should be as complete as possible.

It is not required to amend existing Step 2 and Step 3 grants to provide
for preparing a preliminary Plan of Operation.

After construction of the project has begun, the preliminary Plan must
be updated.   A final Plan of Operation should  be completed, submitted,
and approved not later than the date by which the 50% grant payment of a
Step 3 grant is made.  It then will be available to the chief operator,
who should be on board by that time. In that way, the Plan can serve as
a guide to adequately prepare for proper start-up and operation of the
treatment facility.

REFERENCES

     PL 92-500, Section 204(a)(4)
     40 CFR 35.935-12
-------
                              ATTACHMENT A
                              to PRM #77-3

     Basic Considerations in the Development of a Plan of Operation
                   for Wastewater Treatment Facilities

A Plan of Operation for a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility
should provide an action plan and implementation schedule to assure that
all necessary actions to properly prepare for facility start-up and
continued operation are accomplished in a timely fashion.  The basic
guidance document for the development of a Plan of Operation is Federal
Guidelines - Operation and Maintenance of_ Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
published by the EPA in August 1974.  Some of the guidance needed to
implement the Plan of Operation may be contained in the Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Manual prepared for the facility.  Appropriate reference
in the Plan of Operation to elements of the O&M Manual may suffice for
describing many specific actions. However, at a minimum the Plan of
Operation must identify actions necessary to commence operations and
contain an implementation schedule for their accomplishment.  It is
suggested that a summary of the implementation schedule be compiled on a
chronological basis. This will allow easy reference on a routine basis
to assure that necessary actions are initiated and completed on schedule.

The following very briefly identifies the scope of each of the areas
that might be included in a Plan of Operation.  The referenced Section
numbers in parentheses relate to appropriate sections in the Federal
Guidelines identified above which contain more detailed information on
each of the areas.

     1.   Staffing and Training (Section 2.0)
          This is a particularly important element in any plan of operation
          to assure that supervisory, operations, maintenance, laboratory
          support, and administration personnel are hired and trained in
          a timely manner.  Sources of training should be identified
          whenever possible.  Of particular importance is the need to
          have the Chief Operator on site by 50% completion of construction.

     2.   Records. Reports, and Laboratory Control (Section 3.0)
          The establishment of an adequate laboratory, recording, and
          reporting system should be identified, including the development
          of any special forms needed for reporting or process control
          requirements.  Any special training needs related to a laboratory
          control program should be specified.

     3.   Process Control and Start-up Procedures
          Adequate consideration of plant start-up is essential to
          assure subsequent plant operation with a minimum of problems
          and to set the proper framework for long-term, trouble-free,
-------
     efficient plant operation under all operating conditions.  The
     plan should identify necessary actions related to start-up,
     such as wet and dry testing of equipment, instrument calibration,
     and a review of process control procedures during the start-up
     period.  (For additional guidance on plant start-up, see PRM
     #77-2).

4.   Safety (Section 5.0)
     Effective employee safety programs should be developed and
     appropriate training conducted in advance of start-up.  Existing
     and projected state and local safety requirements should be
     complied with.  All hazardous conditions should be appraised
     and appropriately considered in the inplant safety and health
     plan and the training program should be responsive to identified
     needs and guidance.

5.   Emergency Operating Plan (Section 6.0)
     A comprehensive contingency plan for emergency operations
     should be included in the plant O&M manual.  This plan should
     be substantially implemented in advance of start-up. Appropriate
     instructions and specific response guidance should be issued
     in order to minimize the possibility of plant failures under
     all conditions that may occur.  An effective emergency response
     plan requires advance training in order to be effective.

6.   Maintenance Management (Section 7.0)
     A schedule for developing and implementing a maintenance
     management system should be included.  This should consider
     the need for training to operate the system and/or to deal
     with complex equipment maintenance problems.  Additional
     considerations include personnel training, supplies of chemicals
     used in the treatment process or process control, laboratory
     supplies, the provision of necessary maintenance tools and
     spare parts inventory.

7.   Operation and Maintenance Manual
     The Plan of Operation should include sufficient lead-time for
     the submission and review of the plant O&M manual so as to
     ensure that the manual is approved by the State Water Pollution
     Control Agency at least 30 days prior to plant start-up.  The
     Plan of Operation should also identify future date(s) for
     updating the manual in order to ensure that the most effective
     operational guidance is provided based upon actual operating
     experience.

8.   Operations Budget (Section 9.0)
     Any planning process must consider budgetary constraints on
     implementation and provide for a process for adequate budget
     controls.  Consideration must be given to the development and
-------
          use of a user charge system;  also to the availability of 10%
          of industrial cost recovery receipts for supporting O&M costs.

     9.    Other Elements
          Other elements should be addressed as necessary to assure
          timely implementation of actions related to continued efficient
          and reliable operation of the facility.  Actions and timing
          related to the development and implementation of sewer use
          ordinances, pretreatment ordinances, or  other local rules or
          regulations should also be identified.   Establishment of
          procedures for preparing an annual O&M report should be considered
          for staffing, training, budget planning, maintenance, and
          future construction planning purposes.

The following guidance is suggested for determining the adequacy of
preliminary Plans of Operation:

     1.    Descriptions and scheduling for elements 2-5 and 7 (above)
          should be essentially complete in the preliminary Plan of
          Operation.  The staffing plan of element 1  (above) should also
          be complete, but the training plan may be tentative.

     2.    Descriptions and scheduling for elements 6, 8 and 9 (above)
          may be tentative in the preliminary Plan of Operation.
-------
     ATTACHMENT B
     to PRM #77-3
        Sample

Final  Plan of Operation
-------
                                      8
                                 Preface
Note that this "preface" is purely for descriptive purposes in setting
the stage for this example of a Plan of Operation.  It would not normally
be included in an actual Plan.

The following material presents one example of a final Plan of Operation
prepared in conjunction with the construction of a new or expanded
wastewater treatment facility.   This example is based upon a hypothetical
situation of a new wastewater treatment facility being constructed for
the City of Smithville, Pa.  Smithville is a medium sized bedroom community
near a large metropolitan area and has an existing secondary treatment
facility.  The new "Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility" is being
constructed to provide treatment of wastes from a previously unsewered
area recently annexed by the City, an industrial park constructed for
light manufacturing industry, and housing in the same general area, and
to provide treatment of some wastes from the presently overloaded
facilities.

The existing facility will continue to provide treatment to the older
part of Smithville.  The new facility is in a size range of 5-10 mgd.
The project has followed a normal procedure under the construction grant
program of PL 92-500.  A "preliminary" Plan of Operation would be submitted
with the plans and specifications at the completion of the Step 2 facility
design stage.  It would differ from this example of a "final" Plan of
Operation in that specific dates would not be shown because a construction
timeframe has not been established.  Instead, implementation could be
shown either as an estimate of the percent completion of construction,
or as a certain number of days before an operational start date.  Also,
it may not be possible to identify all necessary actions related to
operations in the preliminary Plan, although it should be as complete as
possible.

This example Plan of Operation is not intended as a rigid guide.  Obviously,
the size, complexity, and type of facility, as well as other factors,
such as whether the facility is new or an expansion or modification of
an existing facility, will influence the extent of information required
in the Plan of Operation.  It is important, however, that each of the
areas illustrated in the example be considered in the Plan of Operation
for any project to assure that all potential needs have been addressed.
As can be seen, the intent of the Plan of Operation is clearly to provide
a simple, straightforward means of identification of an implementation
plan for those action items essential to successful start-up and continued
operation of the treatment facility.
-------
                              Introduction
This plan of operation provides an identification of needed actions and
an implementation schedule for their completion to assure timely start-
up and efficient operation of the new Westside Wastewater Treatment
Facility now under construction in the City of Smithville, Pa.  Construction
of this facility began in May 1975 and is scheduled to be complete in
June 1978. Adherence to the schedule contained in this Plan of Operation
will help assure that start-up of the facility can be accomplished in a
timely and efficient manner.

Many of the details related to necessary actions identified in this plan
of operation are fully discussed in the Operation and Maintenance Manual
being prepared for this facility.  Reference to sections of that manual
are included where appropriate to avoid repetition.  A copy of the draft
O&M manual is provided with this plan to provide necessary back-up
information.
-------
                                     10
1.    Summary of Implementation Dates

     The implementation dates of the following sections are arrayed
below in chronological order to allow rapid identification of action
items and related completion dates.   Frequent reference to this listing
will help avoid the possibility of omission or slippage of key actions
necessary for successful plant start-up and continued operation.
Date

May 1975


July 1975




June 1976

January 1977




June 1977
August 1977



Sept. 1977



October 1977


January 1978
Plan of Operation
Section Reference
February 1978
          Action                        	

Start construction of treatment
  facility

Promulgate new sewer use ordinance to       10(a)
  accomodate industrial discharges
Promulgate industrial pretreatment          10(b)
  ordinance

FY 77 pre-start-up budget considerations     9

Superintendent (Chief Operator) on Board     2(a)
Complete draft of O&M Manual                 8(a)
Review of user charge and industrial         9
  cost recovery systems

Senior Operator on Board                     2(b)
Chief Chemist on Board                       2(c)
FY 78 budget consideration for initial       9
  operation

Begin influent sampling program              4(a)
Begin development of detailed emergency      6(a)
  procedures plan

Begin development of detailed guidance       5(a)
  on employee safety and related training
  program

Staff training schedule finalized and        2
  approved by State

Begin development of action plan for         4(b)
  process control and "fine tuning"
Begin finalization of cooperative            6(b)
  agreements with other agencies
Begin specialized training on incinerator    7(b)
  O&M

Shift Operators on Board                     2(d)
Complete details of emergency procedures     6(a)
  plan
-------
                                    11
Date

February 1978
(continued)
March 1978
April 1978
May 1978
          Action

Begin provision of laboratory supply
  inventory
Begin finalization of system and
  procedures for notification of
  unusual industrial waste discharges
Begin employee training in emergency
  procedures
Begin training of plant personnel on
  maintenance procedures
Finalize O&M Manual
Plan of Operation
Section Reference

     3(b)

     4(d)


     6(c)

     7(f)

     8(b)
Complete detailed guidance on employee       5(a)
  safety and related training program
Finalize cooperative assistance agree-       6(b)
  ments with other agencies
Start review of laboratory analytical and    3(a)
  reporting requirements with operators
  and laboratory staff
Complete development of action plan for      4(b)
  process control and "fine tuning"
Start safety training program                5(b)
Begin debugging of maintenance manage-       7(c)
  ment system computer software

Complete review of laboratory analytical     3(a)
  and reporting requirements with plant
  staff
Complete inventory of laboratory supplies    3(b)
Complete employee training in emergency      6(c)
  procedures
Complete spare parts inventory               7(a)
Complete specialized training on incinerator 7(b)
  O&M
Start review of process control and          4(c)
  detailed start-up procedure with plant
  staff
Begin training on maintenance management     7(d)
  system usage
O&M Manual approved                          8(c)

Complete debugging of maintenance manage-    7(c)
  ment system computer software
Complete training on maintenance management  7(d)
  system usage
Begin pre-start up maintenance schedule      7(e)
Maintenance crew on Board                    2(e)
-------
                                    12
                                                       Plan of Operation
Date                     Action                        Section Reference

May 1978       Complete training in heavy metals analysis   3(c)
(continued)    Treatment facility design, construction,     3(d)
                 operations records, and as built plans
                 completed and on file
               Complete review of process control and       4(c)
                 detailed start-up procedures with
                 plant staff
               Complete influent sampling program           4(a
               Finalize system and procedures for           4(d
                 notification of unusual industrial
                 waste discharges
               Complete safety training program             5(b)

June 1978      Complete wet and dry testing of all          4(e)
                 equipment
               Complete construction of treatment facility
                 (Facility ready for operation)
               Start periodic safety reviews with staff     5(c)
               Complete training of plant personnel          7(f)
                 on maintenance procedures

June 1979      Conduct first annual plant safety review     5(d)
                 and modify safety program, if necessary
               Initiate annual emergency procedures          6(d)
                 update and employee training program
               Update O&M Manual                            8(d)
               Complete first annual treatment system O&M  10(c)
                 report

2.   Staffing and Training

     The recommended staffing complement and a suggested organizational
chart is included in Section 	  of the O&M manual.  In accordance with
EPA guidelines, the chief operator of the facility should be on board at
the 50% completion point of the construction phase of the project.  The
City has been notified of this requirement, and recruitment actions will
begin soon.

     In order to assure adequate time for familiarization with the new
facility and to adequately prepare for start-up, the staff of the facility
should be hired in accordance with the following schedule:

     a.  Superintendent (Chief Operator) on Board-  January 1977
     b.  Senior Operator on Board-                  June 1977
     c.  Chief Chemist on Board-                    June 1977
     d.  Shift Operators on Board-                  February 1978
     e.  Maintenance Crew on Board-                 May 1978
-------
                                      13
     As each of the personnel are located and hired, training needs must
be identified in cooperation with the State Water Pollution Control
Agency. A training schedule should be finalized no later than October 1977.
It is anticipated that additional training in activated sludge process
control will be needed for this new facility and consideration should be
given to the training courses available through the Smith County Community
College.

     Certain specialized training needs have been identified for this
new facility and are discussed as appropriate in other sections of this
plan.

3.   Records, Reports and Laboratory Control

     Examples of daily log sheets, State reporting forms, and self-
monitoring report forms to comply with NPDES permit requirements are
included in Section 	of the O&M manual.  No special reporting require-
ments have been identified; however, certain heavy metals analysis must
be included due to anticipated discharges from the Westside Industrial
Park to be served by this facility.

                                                  Start date     Completion date

     a.   Conduct review of laboratory            March 1978     April 1978
          analytical and reporting require-
          ments with operators and laboratory
          staff

     b.   Provide inventory of laboratory         Feb. 1978      April 1978
          supplies

     c.   Complete training in heavy metals                      May 1978
          analysis (identify source of training)

     d.   Treatment facility design,                             May 1978
          construction, operation records, and
          as built plans completed and on file
          in superintendent's office

4.   Process Control and Start-up Procedures

     Process control and start-up procedures are detailed in Sections 	
and	, respectively, of the O&M manual.  Implementation of the actions
identified in those sections should occur in accordance with the following
schedule:

                                                  Start date     Completion date

     a.  Begin sampling program to define         August 1977    May 1978
         plant influent characteristics
-------
                                     14
                                                  Start Date  Completion Date
     b.   Develop action plan for process         Jan.  1978   March 1978
          control and "fine tuning"

     c.   Review process control  and detailed     April  1978  May 1978
          start-up procedures with plant
          operations and laboratory staff

     d.   Finalize system and procedures          Feb.  1978   May 1978
          for notification of unusual
          industrial waste discharges

     e.   Complete wet and dry testing of                     June 1978
          all equipment

5.   Safety

     The need and specifics of a  safety program for this facility are
detailed in Section 	of the O&M manual.  Activities related to safety
should be implemented in accordance with the following schedule:

                                                  Start Date  Completion Date

     a.   Develop detailed guidance on employee   Sept.  1977  March 1978
          safety and related training program

     b.   Conduct training program for all  plant  March 1978  May 1978
          staff prior to start-up

     c.   Start periodic safety reviews with                  June 1978
          staff

     d.   Conduct first annual plant safety                   June 1979
          review and modify safety program
          if necessary

6.   Emergency Operating Plan

     Detailed emergency operating procedures are outlined in Section 	
of the O&M manual.  To assure success of these procedures during an
emergency, the following actions  should be taken:

                                                  Start Date  Completion Date

     a.   Develop details of emergency            August 1977 February 1978
          procedures plan including
          personnel assignments

     b.   Finalize cooperative assistance         Jan.  1978   March 1978
          agreements with other agencies
-------
                                        15
                                                  Start Date  Completion Date
     c.   Pre-start-up employee training          Feb. 1978   April 1978
     d.   Initiate annual procedures update                   June 1979
          and employee training program
7.   Maintenance Management
     The maintenance management system for this facility is outlined in
Section 	 of the O&M manual.  The maintenance management system will
utilize the City's computer capability to provide routine scheduling of
preventive maintenance activities, spare parts inventory control, and
records of running time and reliability of performance.  To successfully
implement this maintenance management system, the following actions must
be taken:
                                                  Start Date  Completion Date
     a.  Complete spare parts inventory                       April 1978
          including necessary tools
     b.  Conduct specialized training on          Jan. 1978   April 1978
          incinerator operation and
          maintenance by equipment supplier
     c.  Debugging of computer software           March 1978  May 1978
          by subcontractor
     d.  Conduct training on system usage         April 1978  May 1978
          by subcontractor
     e.  Begin pre-start-up maintenance schedule              May 1978
     f.  Provide training of plant personnel  on   Feb. 1978   June 1978
          maintenance procedures
8.   Operation and Maintenance Manual
     The operation and maintenance manual  should be drafted, finalized,
approved, and updated in accordance with the following schedule:
     a.   Drafted                                       January 1977
     b.   Finalized                                     February 1978
     c.   Approved                                      April  1978
     d.   Updated based on first year of operating      June 1979
          experience
9.   Operations Budget
     This facility is scheduled to begin operation in June 1978.  Since
the hiring and training of personnel  should begin in January 1977,
-------
                                    16
appropriate considerations of related costs must be provided in the
City's FY 77 budget. Consideration of pre-start-up and full operation
costs must be reflected in the City's FY 78 budget with the first full
year of operation being FY 79. The City's user charge system and rate
structure should be reviewed by January 1977 to assure an adequate base
to provide needed operating and maintenance revenues.

10.  Other Elements

     The new Westside Wastewater Treatment Facility satisfies needs of
the City of Smithville that will require responsive actions.  To complete
pre-start-up and post-operative actions that will assure continued
operational success, the following actions must also be taken in addition
to those previously identified:

     a.   Promulgate new sewer use ordinance to          July 1975
          accomodate industrial discharges-

     fa.   Promulgate industrial pretreatment             July 1975
          ordinance-

     c.   Complete first annual treatment                June 1979
          system O&M report including
          recommendations on budget, staffing,
          training, maintenance and repairs,
          and future needs.
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460

                                      3  1376
                                        CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                        Program Requirements Memorandum
                                        No. PRM # 77-4
SUBJECT:  Cost Allocations for Multiple Purpose Projects

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant AdttiinistratoiCjf^
          for Water Program Operations  (WH-546)         T

TO:       Regional Administrators, Regions I-X

ATTN:     Water Division Directors
I.  PURPOSE

     The purpose of this memorandum is to present information intended
to assist you in preparing and reviewing cost allocations for multiple-
purpose (e.g. pollution control-flood control and pollution control-
municipal solid waste) projects.  Examples of such multiple-purpose
projects include combined sewer overflow projects that also reduce
flooding and enhance urban drainage and co-incineration projects.

II.  DISCUSSION

     A number of Regions have raised questions regarding procedures for
determining the share of multiple purpose project cost assignable to the
pollution control purpose.

     The cost allocation is to distribute project costs among the purposes
served so that each purpose shares equitably in the savings resulting
from multiple purpose construction. The Alternative Justifiable Expenditure
(AJE) method, a simplied version of the Separable Costs Remaining-
Benefits method, is generally the most appropriate cost allocation
approach for the types of projects likely to be developed under the
construction grants program.  Enclosed is a description of the AJE
method and a simplified example of its use.

     We are currently preparing a technical bulletin providing further
information on examples of cost allocations for various types of multiple-
purpose projects likely to be proposed for construction grant funding.
-------
III.  POLICY

     As required in PRM No. 75-34 (PGM No. 61)  costs of a multiple
purpose project to be construction grant funded shall be allocated among
purposes.  The total costs allowable for construction grant funding
shall not exceed that allocated to the pollution control purpose.  The
pollution control allocation shall:

     (1)  be determined by the AJE method except where unusual circum-
stances warrant use of other methods.

     (2)  in no case, exceed the cost of the least cost single-purpose
pollution control alternative.

IV.  ]M)LEMENTATION

     The enclosed information should be provided to those grantees and
consultants involved with combined sewer overflow or other types of
multiple-purpose projects.  To provide necessary technical assistance to
the consultants and to expedite review of multiple-purpose plans sub-
mitted to EPA for grant funding, it would be desirable for each Region
to assign one or two engineers to cost allocation analysis. Through such
specialization, proficiency could be increased.

     The Facility Requirements Branch is ready to provide assistance
when requested.

V.  REFERENCES

     1.  PRM No. 75-34 (PGM No. 61) Grants for Treatment and Control of
Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharges, December 16, 1975.

     2.  House Committee Print No. 23, 82 Congress, Second Session,
December 5, 1952, "The Allocation of Costs of Federal Water Resources
Development Projects."

     3.  "Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Pro-
jects," Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1958.

     4.  Water Resources Engineering, Ray K. Linsley and Joseph B.
Franzini, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1964, pp. 625-6, Section
21-11, Cost Allocation for Multiple-Purpose Projects, Separable Costs
Remaining-Benefits Method and Alternative Justifiable-Expenditure Method.

Enclosures
-------
       THE ALTERNATIVE JUSTIFIABLE EXPENDITURE METHOD
     The alternative justifiable expenditure method is fundamentally
based on the justified investment for each function.  That justified
investment is taken to be the cost of the most economical alternative
single-purpose project which will achieve substantially the same benefits
as does that function in the multiple-purpose project.  That investment,
sometimes called the alternative justifiable investment, represents the
largest amount which could justifiably be expended on the function in
the multiple-purpose project, for, in most instances, no more should be
spent on a purpose than the cost of producing those benefits from the
least expensive alternative source.

     The cost allocation steps are:

     1.  Estimate the costs of most cost-effective single-purpose pro-
jects to obtain the same objectives as those of the multiple purpose
project.

     2.  Determine the respective specific costs of each purpose in the
multiple purpose project.  The specific costs of a purpose are the sum
of costs assignable to each project component exclusively serving that
single purpose.  An example of a specific cost would be the cost of a
treatment plant included in a project designed to improve urban drainage
and reduce pollution from combined sewer overflows.

     3.  Deduct the specific cost of each purpose in the multiple-
purpose project from the single-purpose project cost.

     4.  From total cost of multiple-purpose project deduct all specific
costs to determine joint costs.

     5.  Distribute joint costs of the multiple-purpose project among
purposes in direct proportion to the remainders found in Step 3.

     6.  To obtain allocated costs for each purpose, add the specific
and the distributed joint costs for each purpose.

     It should be noted that none of the purposes will be assigned costs
which are greater than the cost of the most cost-effective single purpose
project nor less than the specific cost of the purpose.
-------
                    ALTERNATIVE  JUSTIFIABLE EXP' 'MDITURE METHOD
                              COST ALLOCATION K i \MPLE
               (AVERAGE ANNUAL EQUIVALENT COSTS • MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
 Single Purpose
 (Flood Control)
      5.28
Multiple Purposi
      6.32
                           Total Cost,  D.
Specific Cost, A
                           2.78
 Single Purpose
  (Pollution Control)
       3.56
                          Remainder,  (D-A)
                                                   .2.50.
Joint Cost, C
Specific Cost,B
                               •1.89
                      -1.65-
                                           Remainder, E-B   J
                                                -.1.91
                               Total Cost, E
                Flood Control Allocation
                Pollution Control Allocation  =
                                    A    +


                                  2.78   +


                                  3.85

                                    B    +


                                  1.65   +


                                  2.47
                       D-A
                   (D-A+ (E-B)

                       2.50
                    2.50+1.91
      E-B
  (D-A) + (E-B)

      1.91
   2.50+1.91
               X C
                                                                           x 1.89
                                x C
                                                                           x 1.89
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
                             DE
                              PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                              PRM #77 - 5
SUBJECT:  Grant Eligibility of Land Acquisition by Leaseholds or
          Easements for Use in Land Treatment and Ultimate Disposal
          of Residues

FROM:     Russell E. Tr
          Administrator

TO:       Regional Administrators, I - X
PURPOSE:

     This memorandum provides guidance for the interpretation of the
construction grants regulations concerning grant eligibility of land
acquired by leasing or easements for use in land treatment and sludge
disposal.

DISCUSSION;

     The Agency has conducted an intensive study over several months to
determine if land acquisition by lease or easement should be grant
eligible where the land would be an integral part of the treatment
process or required for the ultimate disposal of residues resulting from
wastewater treatment.  The study concluded that under unusual circum-
stances land acquisition by lease or easement will be more cost-effective
than fee simple purchase.  Use of grant funds for acquisition by lease
or easement is legal where cost-effective.  Serious risks exist, however,
including the possibility that the lease will be prematurely terminated
by the lessee; that the conditions of the lease or easement will be
broken; that funds for payments will be misappropriated; and that re-
newal will be prohibitively expensive or impossible.

     It has been roughly estimated that leasing/easements will be
cost-effective only for several hundred projects nationwide.  Most of
these projects would be in arid or semi-arid areas where effluent has a
high value and land has a low value.  In these areas, some landowners
-------
may be willing to pay for wastewater effluents, accept wastewater
effluents free of charge or make leasing arrangements at a nominal
charge.

     Leasing for substantial fees would seldom be cost-effective.
Normally, such cases would be limited to situations where landowners are
willing to lease for total payment equivalent to less than fair market
value.

POLICY;

     The cost of leasing or of obtaining an easement on land for land
treatment or for ultimate disposal of residues from the wastewater
treatment process is eligible for Federal grant assistance when other-
wise in conformance with the requirements of Program Guidance Memoranda
49 and 67, and of this memorandum.  The PGM provisions restricting
eligibility to fee simple purchase are hereby superseded.

     Prior to execution of a lease or an easement for land acquisition,
the grantee shall obtain written approval from the Agency of the con-
ditions for the lease or easement in order for the costs to be allowable
for Federal funding.  These conditions shall:

     1.  Limit the purpose of the lease or easement to land application
(land treatment or sludge disposal) and activities incident to land
application.  (A provision for sub-leasing or licensing for purposes
consistent with the use of land for application purposes may be included).

     2.  Describe explicitly the property use desired.

     3.  Waive the landowner's right to restoration of the property at
the termination of the lease/easement.

     4.  Provide for payment of the lease/easement in a lump sum for the
full value of the entire term (See item 6 below).

     5.  Recognizing the serious risk of premature lease termination,
provide for full recovery of damages by the grantee in such an event
with recovery of the paid Federal share or, alternatively, retention of
the Federal share to be used solely for the eligible costs of the ex-
pansion or modification of the treatment works associated with the
project.  The damages would include the difference between the total
present worth of costs of treatment works changes resulting from premature
termination and the costs otherwise resulting from normal expiration of
the lease. The damages would also include any additional losses or costs
due to unplanned disruption of wastewater treatment.
-------
     6.  Provide for leases/easements for a minimum of twenty  (20)
years, or the useful life of the treatment plant, whichever is longer,
with an option of renewal for an additional term, as deemed appropriate.

     Whenever leasing is to be recaimended, steps shall be taken to
insure that the required lands will be available when needed at the
price and terms presented in the facility plan.  The facility plan shall
include a copy of the proposed leasing agreement and letters of intent
to comply with such agreement from the concerned landowners.  The Step 2
grant shall contain a condition precluding commencement of Step 2 design
work until the grantee has purchased options to lease in accordance with
the terms of the proposed leasing agreement.

     The grantee must take special precautions to avoid actions which
might be construed as a breach of the lease agreement. Land must be used
as agreed upon in the lease/easement.  Any payments (which would not be
grant eligible) required for quantity of effluent or sludge applied
should be paid promptly.

     Leasing of required lands may be approved only where less costly
than outright purchase of the lands as determined by a cost comparison
for each case.  Such comparison must demonstrate that the total present
worth cost of the lease payments plus expected net income accruing to
the landowner from retained uses of the land over 20 years will be less
than an amount representing the market price for fee simple purchase
minus the present worth of the land salvage value 20 years hence.  The
cost comparison must comply with the interest rate, planning period, and
salvage value requirements of the Cost Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines
(Appendix A of the Construction Grant Regulations).

     Where water and/or nutrients are of value, leasing fees should be
minimal or sale/donation of effluents to nearby agriculture or recrea-
tion activities should be possible without Federal grants for land pur-
chase or leasing.

IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE:

     Each Region shall notify states of this PRM and take actions to
assure that grantees meet all the conditions set forth by this memo-
randum when acquiring land by lease or easement.

REFERENCES;

Program Guidance Memorandum No. 49 of July 18, 1975 (PRM 75-25)
Program Guidance Memorandum No. 67 of April 2, 1976 (PRM 75-39)
40 CFR 35.940-3
40 CFR 4.600 et seq
40 CFR 30.810 et seq
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970, (P.L. 91-646)  42 USC Section 4651 et seq.
-------
        \
f 52J2JJ   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\,   ^                     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                            Construction Grants
                                            Program Requirements Memorandum

     4
    SUBJECT:  Easements

    FROM:     John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
              for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

    TO:       Regional Administrators

    ATTN:     Water Division Directors


    PURPOSE:
         The purpose of this memorandum is to establish Agency policy
    regarding the timing of the conduct of the grantee's easement work.

    DISCUSSION :
         A report by the General  Accounting Office (dated July 30, 1976)
    indicated that certain Step 3 grant delays could have been avoided had
    the grantees completed preliminary easement related work (obtaining maps
    and descriptions of land parcels, determining property ownership,  etc.)
    during the Step 2 process.   Therefore, by requiring that preliminary
    easement work be accomplished during Step 2, potential delays in Step 3
    can be avoided by timely resolution of such problems.

         In addition, Regions should also consider the need (on a case-by-
    case basis) for the grantee to undertake the actual taking of easements
    and/or acquisition of sites during the Step 2 process.  Such actions  can
    also serve to reduce delays in approving Step 3 awards.  However,  this
    would exclude the acquiring of or the taking of easements for land
    parcels to be used for sludge disposal or land treatment as the costs of
    such acquisitions or easements are capital expenditures which are eligible
    under a Step 3 grant [see PRM's 75-25 (P6-49) and 75-39 (PG-67)],  but
    would become unallowable if incurred prior to the Step 3 award.

    POLICY:

         Effective this date all  new Step 2 grants will include the provision
    that appropriate preliminary easement related work will be accomplished
    concurrent with other Step  2 work.  This preliminary easement work
-------
should include obtaining maps and legal  descriptions of land parcels,
determining land ownership, etc., and other steps necessary to forestall
property related problems which might tend to lengthen the preconstruction
period under Step 3.

     In addition, Regions may (during Step 2) permit grantees to take
easements and/or acquire sites, if it is determined that such action
will contribute to the more efficient processing of the Step 3 award
and if such easements/sites are not potentially grant eligible under
Step 3.

IMPLEMENTATION:
     Regional offices should take steps to include the requirement
relating to preliminary easement work in all  Step 2 applications currently
under review.  The requirement need not be in the form of a specific
Grant Condition, rather the applicant should  simply be officially notified
of the need to accomplish the work.  Future applicants should be notified
of the requirement during initial contacts with them; i.e., during
preapplication conferences, in grants information "packets", etc.

     Regional offices may use their discretion in seeking proof of
compliance with this requirement.  As a minimum, EPA should require
certification by the Authorized Representative that the requisite work
has been accomplished and/or that all foreseeable problems have been
reconciled or will be prior to Step 3 construction.

     The Construction Grants Handbook of Procedures will be revised to
reflect this requirement.
-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                     rAY  IS 1S77
                                                 Program Requirement Memorandum
                                                 PRM  #77-7
SUBJECT:  Management of State Project Priority Lists
FROM:     John T.  Rhett,  Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators

          PURPOSE
               This memorandum outlines  EPA policy  concerning annual State project
          priority list development,  and provides a procedure to manage priority
          list review,  approval,  project scheduling, and update through the
          Regional Construction Grants Management Information System (RCGMIS).  No
          basic changes from existing policy  have been made, although an addi-
          tional element of information  concerning  the relationship among the
          various planning, design,  and  construction projects within a given grant
          (i.e. parent  project number) is now required in all priority list sub-
          missions to facilitate management through the RCGMIS.  (See Item (3)
          under DISCUSSION below.)   The  previous policy guidance on priority list
          development contained in PG SAM-4 (issued as PG SM-3 on March 28, 1975),
          and the FY 1977 Program Planning Guidance has been incorporated herein.
          PRM 75-40 (issued as PG 68 on  March 7, 1976) outlining computer pro-
          cedures for priority list  review, and PG  SAM-9  (issued as PG SM-5 on
          September 29, 1975)  and the documents referenced  therein regarding
          policy on State Priority Systems remain in effect.  All other guidance
          concerning State project priority lists,  not consistent with this memo-
          randum, is hereby superseded.

          BACKGROUND

               The basic regulatory  framework for priority  list development and
          utilization is contained in §35.915 of 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E (con-
          struction grant regulations),  40 CFR Parts 130 and 131, especially
          8130.31 (relationship to municipal  facilities program), and §35.562-
          35.566 of 40  CFR Part 35 Subpart B  (Section 106 program grant regula-
          tions) .  The  priority list is  part  of the State continuing planning
          process, involving three interrelated functions:
-------
                             -2-

       o  Issuance of a State Priority System to provide a basis for
          achieving optimum water quality improvement through develop--
          ment of general criteria for ranking municipal discharges
          throughout the State (See PG SAM-9 attached).

       o  Annual preparation of a State Municipal Discharge Inventory
          (or Needs Inventory) which ranks all significant municipal
          discharges for the entire State, submitted as  part of the
          annual State Program Plan pursuant to §35.562.

       o  Annual preparation and submittal of a State Project Priority
          List (derived from the approved State Priority System and
          consistent with the Municipal Discharge Inventory) containing
          projects expected to receive awards from available construc-
          tion grant allotment funds.

     The primary functions and uses of priority lists are two-fold:   (1)
to identify the relative priority of projects eligible for award within
limited State allotment funds based on clear and consistent priority
criteria, and (2) to facilitate the planning and management of the
future State program based on project schedules.  The purpose of the
firsc function is to reserve funds for those facilitates which would
best achieve pollution abatement in the State for the funds available;
Che second function allows management of funds by adding timing and  the
treatment works sequence (i.e. Step 1,2,3) as factors in the order of
funding.

     Until release of PG SAM-4 on March 28, 1975, EPA policy dealt
primarily with the priority criteria function and provided only minimal
guidance on management of funds within these general factors.  Since
then, EPA has required (1) a projected target application certification
date for all projects, (2) an extended priority list supplement to the
fundable list that scheduled all subsequent step awards  for existing or
planned Step 1 and 2's, and (3) at least a quarterly update of the
expected funding schedule for projects on the fundable and extended
priority list.  In conjunction with these new management-oriented re-
quirements, EPA has developed procedures and related programming support
through the Regional Construction Grants Management Information System.
Since the issuance of the FY 1977 Program Planning Guidance outlining
the multiyear planning requirements, however, only a small number of
States and EPA Regions have made use of the extended list and the RCGMIS
for priority list management.  Uncertainty of future funding, the short-
term planning perspective on use of FY 1976 allotment funds, and con-
flicting or ambiguous guidance have been cited as the major reasons  for
non-compliance with the multiyear planning policy.
-------
                             -3-

DISCUSSION

     The points addressed below focus on the substantive issues in
priority list management and outline EPA policy toward their resolution:

     (1)  Future State Funding.  Early notice of future year funding is
essential for effective State priority list planning.  The change from
contract authority to regular appropriations has made advance notice
more uncertain, as funds now will not be available to the States until
authorized, appropriated, and allotted — a process that will probably
not make funding certain until only a few months before each fiscal year
begins.  Accordingly, EPA will issue a Program Operations Memorandum
(P.O.M.) or provide information in the annual Program Planning Guidance
by April 1 of each year outlining annual funding assumptions by State,
expected long term funding eligibilities, and other legislative or
administrative factors that would affect priority list planning.  Early
warning of variance from these assumptions will be provided as required.
(See final FY 1978 Program Planning Guidance for current year funding
assumptions).

     (2)  Priority List Management and the RCGMIS.  Efficient priority
list management in a program as large and complex as the construction
grants program requires information that is easily accessible, accurate,
and timely.  Because EPA now requires multiyear planning with timely and
accurate scheduling information, manual processing of priority list
information is no longer practical or acceptable to meet the demands of
our program.  EPA guidance provided in PRM 75-40 outlined a suggested
procedure to more efficiently review, approve, and update State priority
list submissions through the RCGMIS.  A number of analytical programs
have been provided to the Regions to assist in implementing this pro-
cedure.  Starting with the FY 1978 planning cycle, the Regions will be
required to:

       o  Ensure that all required priority list information is sub-
          mitted by the States in the format contained in Attachment A.
          (Note that the format has one change from last year.  See item
          (3) below).

       o  Enter all priority list data into the RCGMIS immediately after
          receipt of the final State list (prior to approval).  (See
          suggested procedure outlined in PRM 75-40 for deletion or
          change in existing priority list projects prior to entry of
          new list.)

       o  Approve and distribute the priority list contained in the
          RCGMIS as the official, up-to-date priority list for day-to-
          day use.
-------
                             -4-

       o  Update project schedules and project priority (where neces-
          sary) contained in the RCGMIS on at least a quarterly basis.

Assistance in implementing these requirements is available from the
Program Planning and Evaluation Branch, Municipal Construction Division,
in Headquarters (8-426-8990).

     (3)  Parent Project Number.  To facilitate priority list manage-
ment, a mechanism to link all projects within a given grant or facility
is required.  A parent project number for every priority list project,
as defined in the RCGMIS Data Element Dictionary (data element B2), will
provide this linkage.

     The parent project is the prior project step (or segment of a step)
most closely related to the project being planned.  For projects that
follow the Step 1, 2, 3 process, the parent project number is simply the
prior project in the step sequence.  For more complex grants, however,
the parent project may not be immediately clear:

       o  A Step 2 project may have a parent Step 1 with a different
          grant number or may share a single parent Step 1 with other
          Step 2 projects.

       o  A Step 3 project may share the same parent Step 2 with other
          Step 3 projects or may have one of many Step 2 awards within
          the same grant as its parent.

       o  A Step 2 or Step 3 project may be the first project funded by
          EPA for that facility.  Therefore this project would not have
          a prior related project (i.e. parent project).

       o  A Step 3 may have as its parent a Step 1 if no Step 2 project
          is planned or funded  (i.e. design reimbursed at Step 3 or non-
          EPA funded).

The related Section 208 grant number also must be inserted as the parent
number for the first project of every grant.

     The Regions should ensure that States identify this parent project
number for every project on the priority list.  The parent project
number must include the sequence number.  The format contained in
Attachment A includes a column for the parent project number.  Existing
computer programs will use this number to link all related funded and
planned projects (however complex the grant) for display in one place to
allow convenient review of all grant actions for a given facility.
-------
                             -5-

     (4)  Priority Criteria.  Priority criteria for priority list develop-
ment is provided through §35.915 (c)(1) and clarified in Program Guidance
Memorandum SAM-9 (See Attachment B).  A number of issues have surfaced
recently regarding acceptable priority criteria per the general clause
in §35.915 (c) (1), which allows use of "... additional factors identi-
fied by the State in its priority system."  It has been, and will continue
to be, EPA policy to narrowly define the use of this factor.  Unless
suggested criteria under this clause refer to specific pollution abate-
ment considerations or other special conditions that clearly work toward
that goal, EPA will not approve them as factors in the State priority
system.  (Note that one factor — separate lists for small communities —
has been allowed under conditions outlined in PG SAM-9).  One criterion
suggested recently — the economic conditions or employment rate within
a project area — is specifically disallowed under this policy.  Al-
though employment impact is a byproduct of the grants program, nothing
in the FWPCA or the regulations would allow use of the economic situation
as a factor to rank projects.

     (5)  Readiness to Proceed in Priority List Management.  Although
the use of project readiness for funding may not be used as a priority
criterion for ranking projects, the ability to bypass projects not yet
ready to proceed according to schedule is an integral part of priority
list management.  Projects certified by the State and agreed to by the
Region as not ready for Step funding before the end of the current
allotment period can be bypassed in favor of lower priority projects as
long as (a) the approved priority system has a procedure to bypass them
(under specific conditions), reinstate them, and allow for public parti-
cipation, and (b) the projects to be bypassed maintain their relative
priority for future funding consistent with water quality management
plans approved by the State and EPA.

     (6)  Fundable Portion of Priority List.  The fundable portion of
the priority list contains all the projects planned for award in a
specified funding period ranked in order of priority.  It should include
a sufficient number of projects to fully obligate the available funds,
including specified reserves for grant increases and Step 1 and 2 projects.
All projects (regardless of priority)  not planned for award in the
funding period are excluded from this list (See extended list below).
It is EPA policy to require a single fundable priority list (with the
exception of small city secondary lists allowed under PG SAM-9) for any
given period.  Major items to consider in priority list development
include:
-------
                   -6-

The fundable project priority list is to be based on all funds
available for a specific funding period, not on any single
allotment provided to the State.  The funding period is de-
fined as the period from the first day of the upcoming fiscal
year through the reallotment date of the latest available or
expected allotment.  During any funding period there may be
several allotments from which funds are available for obliga-
tion.  For FY 1978, the funding period is from October 1, 1977
to the date that the FY 1978 allotment would be subject to
reallotment.  During this period, the FY 1977 allotment and
funds from Title III of the Public Works Employment Act will
also be available for obligation.  Although the funding period
extends to the reallotment date of the last allotment, it
should be recognized that there may be intermediate reallot-
ment dates during this period.  Regions and States should
assure that sufficient projects are scheduled to fully utilize
each allotment by its respective reallotment date.

All projects from prior fundable project priority lists for
which grant assistance has not been awarded at the time the
new list is prepared, and which are consistent with water
quality management plans approved by the State and EPA, should
be included in the annual development of the revised priority
list.

No project need have funds reserved from a particular allot-
ment.  A number of States have maintained multiple priority
lists based on the number of allotments available during the
funding period, or according to the year each project was
first put on the priority list.  States maintaining multiple
lists should take steps to combine them into a single list
during the FY 1978 cycle.  The balance from each allotment
should be awarded according to oldest allotment first, without
regard to a project/allotment connection.

The fundable priority list is developed annually and must
contain enough projects (and associated dollar amounts) to
cover the obligation of all funds currently available or
assumed to be available during this funding period, including
a defined reserve for increases or unspecified Step 1/2 starts.
Regions should ensure that States maintain accurate project
schedules and estimates of EPA grant amount for every project
to properly reflect project eligibilities with available
funding levels.

The total fundable list is subject to all relevant public
participation requirements.
-------
                             -7-

     (7)  Extended Portion of Priority List.  States are required to
prepare an extended list for projects not planned for award during the
funding period that, at a minimum, includes (a) a Step 3 project or
projects for every Step 2 already funded or scheduled to be funded with
currently available funds, (b) Step 2 and 3 projects for each completed
facility plan, and (c) Step 2 and 3 projects for each Step 1 project
active or planned with currently available funds where the anticipated
scope of the Step 1 is apparent.  The extended list will further include
Step 2 or 3 projects expected to receive awards past the fundable period
for which no Step 1 or 2 was funded by EPA.  The States may also provide
information on new grants (including new Step 1's) planned past the
funding period derived from approved water quality management plans or
the 1976 Needs Survey.  The extended list provides a multiyear per-
spective to the annual State project priority list planning cycle.
Because it is a planning document for State and Region use only, it need
not be submitted to public hearing, although no project on the extended
list can be funded until complying with the requirements of public
participation and the State continuing planning process.  Properly
developed, it will focus State/EPA planning on the consequences to the
future program of current planned actions.

     The extended priority list should also contain a number of projects
that, while not included on the fundable priority list because of lower
relative priority, are expected to be ready for award during the funding
period.  These projects should be considered contingency projects to
provide backup for use of funds should higher priority projects slip.
These projects must already have been subjected to all relevant public
participation requirements so that States and Regions can move them onto
the fundable list in priority order as required according to the guide-
lines set forth in item (5)  above.

     (8)  Use of Step 1/2 Reserve.  A Step 1/2 reserve (not to exceed
10% of each allotment) was established to allow Regions to fund Step 1
projects for facilities of lower priority than current funds would allow
or for which no need had surfaced at the time of priority list develop-
ment (e.g. emerging health problems).  EPA policy, however, has been to
minimize the use of this reserve in favor of identifying Step 1 and 2
projects on the fundable priority list wherever possible.  The use of
the 1976 Needs Survey data should make future project identification
more precise and lessen the need for this reserve.  The amount set aside
for the Step 1/2 reserve for each allotment must be specifically stated
in the fundable priority list and separately accounted for.
-------
                             -8-

     (9)  Reserve for Grant Increases.   The reserve set aside for grant
increases (no less than 5% of each allotment)  is expected to cover
increases to funded projects, whether because of cost overruns or scope
changes, special studies, or mis-estimates.  The reserve is expected to
cover SSES costs not anticipated in the Step 1 award (if not separately
included on the priority list).   Although the fundable portion of the
priority list is based on all funds available for a funding period,  the
reserve is fixed to a specific allotment by regulation and must be
maintained until 6 months before the reallotment date for each allot-
ment.  The reserve for each allotment must be specifically stated in the
fundable priority list and separately accounted for.

     (10)  Target Application Certification Date and Amount.  The target
certification date is the date the State expects to certify the project
application to EPA for funding.   The expected grant amount accompanying
this certification must always be based on the latest information avail-
able to the State and be updated on a quarterly basis.  EPA policy
requires the target date (month and year) and projected grant amount to
be included on all projects in both the fundable portion and extended
portion of the project priority list.  The target certification date is
based on the project's readiness to proceed, not its funding priority.
Projects below the available funding line can be projected to be certi-
fied during the funding period (i.e. contingency projects) even though
not eligible under current funding levels.  This date allows EPA and the
State to forecast workload, estimate obligations by month or quarter,
monitor performance, evaluate contingency plans, and track project
slippages.  Because the target certification date and amount will change
frequently, EPA requires jit least quarterly update of these estimates
for all projects on the fundable priority list, the contingency projects
on the extended list, and all projects  on the extended list that have a
combined eligible cost for Step 1, 2, and 3 of greater than $10 million
(Program Management System (PMS) projects).  The target certification
dates for other projects on the extended list may be updated less fre-
quently at the Region's option.   However the value of the extended
priority list as a planning tool lies in up-to-date project schedules.
The target certification date is a planning and management tool; more
frequent update is encouraged to facilitate the use of the priority list
in day-to-day management.

POLICY

     This section contains EPA policy for development of fundable and
extended priority lists and their use in management and planning.
Additional policy regarding priority criteria is contained in Program
Guidance Memorandum SAM-9 and other guidance issued through the PRM
series.  The following points define EPA policy on priority lists:
-------
                      -9-

o  Funding assumptions,  schedules for State priority list sub-
   mittal and review, and other specific considerations will be
   provided annually through the Program Planning Guidance or a
   Program Operations Memorandum (POM)  by April 1 of each year.

o  The priority list shall be composed of two portions:

   (1)  The fundable (approved) priority list, based on all funds
        available over a specified funding period.   This list
        shall include those projects planned for grant  award from
        the first day of the upcoming fiscal year through the
        reallotment date of the latest available or expected
        allotment, plus specified reserves for grant increases
        and Step 1 and 2 projects.  This portion of the list must
        be developed in accordance with the approved State project
        priority system and all regulatory provisions.

   (2)  The extended project list, to include (at a minimum) all
        subsequent Steps and project segments of existing or
        planned grants not planned for award during the funding
        period.  The extended list should contain a sufficient
        number of projects that can be ready for award  during the
        funding period (contingency projects).  Projects on the
        fundable priority list that are certified by the State as
        unable to proceed within the funding period may be by-
        passed in favor of these contingency projects,  subject to
        all relevant public participation requirements.  This
        list may also include any new grants (including new
        Step 1's) planned past the funding period derived from
        approved water quality management plans or the  1976 Needs
        Survey.  The extended list is a planning schedule to be
        used to evaluate the draft fundable list for proper mix
        of projects and commitments on future use of funds.  All
        planned Steps and segments for known grants should be
        included on the list.  The extended list, as a  planning
        document, should be developed through public participation
        although its use will not be bound by the relevant public
        participation regulations.  However, no project on the
        extended project list is fundable until it complies with
        the regulations concerning public participation as they
        relate to the priority list process.
-------
                  - 10-

Th e total priority list is to be submitted to EPA each year
according to the requirements of the State continuing planning
process and based on the schedule contained in the Section 106
regulations, in priority order, and with the information and
standard format provided for in Attachment A.  Note that the
parent project number (data element B2)  is now required for
all projects.  The Region and State should work together to
expedite entry of the draft list into the Regional Construction
Grants Management Information System (RCGMIS) in accordance
with PRM 75-40.

The approved project priority list will be the list residing
in the RCGMIS.  The RCGMIS list will be used as the basic
document to address all priority list issues.

The project priority list will incorporate all projects from
the prior approved priority list for which grant assistance
has not been awarded at the time the new list is prepared.
The prior list will be superseded at the time the new list
goes into effect (i.e. first day of upcoming fiscal year).
For any funding period, only one approved list will be oper-
ative.

The funding period for the fundable (approved) priority list
will be from the first day of the upcoming fiscal year through
the reallotment date of the latest planned or available allot-
ment.

The target certification date is required for all projects on
the priority list, including both the approved list and the
extended list.

The State is required to update the target certification date
and expected EPA grant amount on a quarterly basis for projects
on the fundable priority list, the contingency projects on the
extended list, and all projects on the extended list that have
a combined eligible cost for Step 1, 2, and 3 of greater than
$10 million (Program Management System (PMS) projects).  The
target certification dates for other projects on the extended
list may be updated less frequently at the Region's option.
It is assumed for all uses of this information that the target
certification date and the expected grant amount contained in
RCGMIS are accurate from the beginning of the latest quarter.

The use of the Step 1/2 reserve should be minimized in favor
of early identification of Step 1 projects on the approved
priority list, based on the 1976 Needs Survey.  The reserve
for both Step 1 and Step 2 should be limited to emergency
situations (i.e. health need) and not be used to cover in-
sufficient planning and non-priority needs.
-------
                            -11-

       o  Both the reserve for Step I/Step 2 projects and for grant
          increases should be explicit in the draft priority list  sub-
          mitted by the State and be separately accounted for by allot-
          ment throughout the life of the priority list.

IMPLEMENTATION

     The States are to be advised of the revised EPA policy regarding
priority list development, starting in the FY 1978 planning cycle.   This
memorandum, in conjunction with the FY 1978 Program Planning Guidance,
is to be used by the Region to develop appropriate guidance materials
for each of the States to ensure that proper funding assumptions,  pro-
cedures, and formats are followed by the State in its FY  1978 Section 106
Plan and draft project priority list.

     The procedures outlining the use of the Regional Construction
Grants Management Information System (RCGMIS) for priority list review,
approval, and update are to be implemented in all Regions during the
FY 1978 State planning cycle.

REFERENCES

     P.L. 92-500, Sections 106, 201, 202, 204, 208(b)(2)B
     40 CFR 35.562, 35.563, 35.566, 35.915
     40 CFR Parts 130, 131
     Program Guidance Memorandum SAM-9 (formerly SM-5)
     FY 1978 Program Planning Guidance.
     May 7, 1973 All-Region TWX on Priority Criteria
     1974 EPA Water Strategy Paper on Priority Criteria
-------
H
Z
S
   U
   •o
I
 z H
 815
   CO
   •H
   J
S
H
H <
en a,
ww




1
CJ H
M a
J Z O
CH O Pi
a* i-( <
< H H
H
a "->
B*S
H O BJ
GRANT
IDENT.
NUMBER
H
O
2-i *
a si


n
CN H
I CANT
, NAME (TN=]
71' ADDRESS
-i % Z
u H
PROJECT
(Facili

2
o
w • If
H B4 Z
** ti £
r-
PH * CO
H • Z
to O H
ta
^ CJ /-,
rH Z -3-
II 3 II
z cxz
EH Id H
a
t: M
a cj
z z
u
M K CM
J tO S
I-J II
cj a z
< Z EH
OS Cv
to u cj
Id CQ It
O E Z
Z Z ^


CN
II H
Z Id -^
H a
^ o x
>H Z
CJN U
>,
-i en oo
O Z II
M M Z
Oi O cH
PL< C- •—•
PRIORITY
Ranking
(TN=59)









































































































































































































































•

r^
rH

3

•r)

•H
"O
C
•H

•O


CO
•H
rH

CJ


p


CO
•H

•a
c
CO

^J
CJ


O
U
a.

CJ

CO
'H
CO
a.
CU
CO

to

to

4-1
3

•H
4J
CO
c
o
CJ

a.
o

en




o


g
e

CU
CO


o

.-*
c
d

c.
CJ

00
CJ
id
*




s
3
•3
C
B

O
CJ
g


CJ O
CJ

o o

£• 4J
0
•a cu
CU CO
a
s z
0 0
1-1 rH
(X tO
to

_C CJ
4J tO
M
0 O

CU
•d a
a) to

to
rH •

W CU
rH
P*i -Q
t-H CO
-1 -H
CJ -H
CU CO
H >
•H CO
•0

C.-H
CJ ^
4-1
CO CU

•a cu
cu .a
•a
c -o
3 CU

cu

o c
•H CU

a 0
.a
cu

*J3 rH
3

O -C



4-1 CJ
•H .C

•H 3


C^ 4-1
— ' C


o a.

e co
3 C
C CM

4_! £
C C


CO U
o
cu to
JS
iJ CJ
f

to
c •
•H 4J
CO =


o a
CJ
CO

O u-t
•9 °
3 4-1
C c.
cu
4J .—
C O
C U

o'

a. co

AJ 't-
fl UH
a
^4 C
C— "
CJ U|
H £

*
•X
s
coco

^
CS 4-1 V4


O IH O
CJ O -H
I— 4J
^^ C O
S -H -rl


O 4-1
^ ti. d
CU CJ
J S
g • cu
3 S rH
c cu a

C « cfl
O (»! «
•H on ro
4-1 a
u c
d o -3
10 -H C
e 4J to
co to
V< S rH
4-1 rJ tO
0 3
CU "H C
-= = co
H l-H S

..
y
b
Z
-------
          ATTACHMENT B.
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IJJBJECT:   State  Priority  Systems  Used  in  the Development-       DATE.-  $E? 2 9 1975'
          -of State  Project,Priority Lists
FROM-.     Direxrw/ywatdt- Pla/foifig^ulvis'ion  (WII-554)
TO:       All Regional Administrators

ATTN:     All Regional Water Division Directors  PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM: SAM-9


          PURPOSE

               This memorandum is to clarify and reiterate previous guidance
          concerning State priority systems, used in the development of State
          project priority lists.  As there has been limited guidance in this
          area during the last two years and because several mr.jor policy
          issues with respect to priority lists have been raised, there is a
          need for additional guidance.  The guidance should serve to continue
          the accelerated pace of the grants program while retaining the
          Agency's objective of dealing with the worst pollution problems first.

          BACKGROUND

               The Water Strategy Paper and several EPA regulations address the
          development of priorities for the submission and approval of construc-
          tion grant applications.  The relevant regulations are those for
          the State Planning Process  (40 CFR Part 130) State Programs (40 CFR
          Part 35 Subpart B), and Construction Grants (40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E).
          In addition, an all-Region TWX 'titled Guidance for State Development
          and Regional Review 
-------
                                     -2-
enforceable provisions of the law,  (2)  projects which are not required
to meet water quality standards, but which must comply with the enforce-
able provisions of the law, 3) projects that are desirable in terms of
water quality improvement, but against which the enforceable provisions
of the law for secondary treatment can not be applied and 4) projects
which do not directly involve discharge of pollutants.

     In the past few months, scvcrnl Regions and States have
 inquired about 1',1'A policy regarding various priority systems  issues
not sufficiently covered by the previous guidance.  The most  fre-
quent inquiry deals with the use of population as a criterion.  The
expressed concern relates to growth policy and whether the population
value used should be existing or future population.  The Agency's
position supports the legislative history of P.L. 92-500 that
construction grant funds are  intended to be used primarily for abate-
ment of existing pollution rather than treatment of expected  future
wastewater flows.  Thus, where  population affected is used as a
priority system criterion population should be defined as that
preseatly existing.

     There have also been recent requests for a clarification of EPA
policy concerning adequate construction grant funding for small
 communities.  To ensure  that  per capita distribution of  grant funds
 to communities of differing population size is generally proportional,
 the-Agency has no objection  if  a State chooses to set aside  a
 reasonable percentage of its  funds  for projects of smaller communities.
 Thus,  a State may establish  a reserve  for small communities  (as defined
 by the State and approved  by  the Regional Office) and one for the
 remaining  larger communities.   However, in ranking projects  within each
 community  size category  and  in  consolidating the  lists of both cate-
 gories, the  State must consider the severity of the pollution problem
 and the need for preservation of high  quality waters.  Funds may not  be
 allocated  on any basis not related  to  water pollution needs.

      An additional  issue arises from the  fact  that some  States have
 developed  priority  systems which heavily  emphasize advanced  waste  treat-
 ment works  at  the expense  of projects  to  achieve  secondary  treatment.
 This may not be  the  most cost-effective use of available funds.  Thus,
 where advanced waste treatment  works which only slightly improve water
 quality are  given higher priority than projects with  less than secondary
 treatment,  the  Regional  Administrator  should question the State
 priority  system and seek a change if appropriate.

 .POLICY

      The  basic national  criteria  for use  in State project priority
 systems are retained.  However, Regional  Administrators  continue  to
 be advised that  they may approve other criteria consistent  with these.
-------
                                   -3-
     The Regional Offices shall advise each State of the policies
established in this memorandum relative to the development of
the next project list, and shall determine jointly with each State
the need for revision, if any, of the States'  priority systems.  In
those cases, where a revision is determined to be necessary, the
Region shall obtain a commitment from the State as to when such
revision will be completed, recognizing the need to prepare FY 1977
State program plans next Spring.

     The Regions shall work with all interested States to establish
priority lists which reflect a set aside of a proportional share of
construction funds for small communities.  In addition, the Regions
should examine closely situations where projects requiring advanced
waste treatment compete on the project list with other projects
requiring secondary treatment.  Close examination of the priority
system is also required to ensure that population is construed only
as existing and not future population.

     Finally, it is the responsibility of the Regional Administrator
to assure that the priority system for each State is applied correctly
in the'development of the project list.

CONCURRENCES

(WH-551), Beck       Concur/  (,']/     Nonconcur           Date
 (WH-546), Rhett      Concur<£7p      Nonconcur	  Date 2.
-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                             2 1 JUM 1977

                                CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                        Program Requirements Memorandum
                        NO. 77-8                             THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM FOR  Regional Administrators

SUBJECT:  Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects


I.  PURPOSE

     This memorandum summarizes Agency policy on the award of grants for
sewage collection system projects under P.L. 92-500.  It sets forth
guidance for rigorous review of grant applications to ensure that proposed
projects meet the established requirements of the law and regulations.

II.  DISCUSSION

     Sewage collection system projects may be grant eligible projects
under P.L. 92-500 (the Act).  Eligibility is limited, however, by Section
211 of the Act which provides for funding of collection systems only 1)
for the replacement or major rehabilitation of an existing collection
system or 2) for new collection systems in existing comrnunities.

     Sewage collection systems are defined in 40 CFR 8 35.905-19 as:

                    For the purpose of S 35.925-13, each, and
               all, of the common lateral sewers, within a
               publicly-owned treatment system, which are
               primarily installed to receive wastewaters
               directly from facilities which convey wastewater
               from individual structures or from private
               property, and which include service connection
               "Y" fittings designed for connection with those
               facilities.  The facilities which convey waste-
               water from individual structures or from private
               property to the public lateral sewer, or its
               equivalent, are specifically excluded from the
               definition, with the exception of pumping units,
               and pressurized lines, for individual structures
               or groups of structures when such units are cost
               effective and are owned and maintained by the
               grantee.
-------
      The eligibility of sewage collection system projects is further
defined in 40 CFR & 35.925-13 which reads:

                    That, if the project is for, or includes
               sewage collection system work, such work (a) is
               for replacement or major rehabilitation of an
               existing sewer system pursuant to S 35.927-3(a)
               and is necessary to the total integrity and
               performance of the waste treatment works
               servicing such community, or (b)  is for a new
               sewer system in a community in existence on
               October 18, 1972, with sufficient existing or
               planned capacity to adequately treat such collected
               sewage.  Replacement or major rehabilitation of
               an existing sewer system may be approved only if
               cost effective and must result in a sewer system
               design capacity equivalent only to that of the
               existing system plus a reasonable amount for
               future growth.  A community, for purposes of
               this section, would include any area with sub-
               stantial human habitation on October 18, 1972.
               No award may be made for a new sewer system in
               a comnunity in existence on October 18, 1972
               unless it is further determined by the Regional
               Administrator that the bulk (generally two-thirds)
               of the flow design capacity through the sewer
               system will be for waste waters originating from
               the connunity (habitation) in existence on
               October 18, 1972.

     This section of the EPA regulations implements Section 211 of
P.L. 92-500.

     All treatment works funded under the construction grants program
must represent the most cost effective alternative to comply with the
requirements of the Act.  Treatment works are defined in Section 212 to
include sewage collection systems.  EPA cost-effectiveness requirements
are found in 40 CFR S 35.925-7 and in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 35.

     A large number of new collection system projects have appeared on
FY 1977 State project priority lists.  The lists contain both individual
collection system projects and collection systems associated with treat-
ment plant and interceptor sewer projects.  Many of these projects may
not meet the eligibility and cost-effectiveness requirements set forth
above.

     Funding must be denied for all collection system projects which are
not grant eligible or not cost-effective.  This is important for two
reasons.  First, the requirements of the regulations must be satisfied.
Secondly, the funding of collection system projects not meeting the
-------
eligibility and cost-effectiveness requirements will commit limited
Federal dollars to projects which provide fewer pollution control benefits
than more needed treatment plants and interceptors.

     Public disclosure of costs is a fundamental prerequisite for all
grants projects, including collection systems.  Program Requirements
Memorandum 76-3, "Presentation of Local Government Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Works in Facility Plans," August 16, 1976, requires that cost
information be presented at all public hearings held on facility plans
after January 2, 1977.  However, public hearings were held on many
collection system projects prior to this date.  Special measures are
necessary to ensure the public is aware of the cost implications of
collection systems prior to their approval.

     The following policy is to be followed in reviewing future grant
applications for collection system projects.  This policy supplements
all existing Agency regulations and policy statements.  It does not levy
any fundamentally new requirements, but provides guidance for more
rigorous review of grant applications to ensure that proposed projects
meet the established requirements of the law and regulations.  Compliance
with this policy will help to assure that only grant eligible and cost-
effective collection system projects are funded by EPA.

III.  POLICY

     EPA policy on the funding of sewage collection systems is as follows:

     A.  Substantial human habitation

     New collector sewer projects are eligible for funding only in a
community in existence on October 18, 1972, with sufficient existing or
planned capacity to treat adequately such collected sewage.  The Title
II regulation states in Section 35.925-13 that a community would include
any area with substantial human habitation on October 18, 1972.  The
bulk (generally two-thirds)  of the flow design capacity through the
sewer system is to be for wastewaters originating from the habitation.

     The Agency policy is that closely populated areas with average
densities of 1.7 persons per acre (one household for every two acres) or
more on October 18, 1972, shall be considered to meet the requirement
for "substantial human habitation".  Population density should be evaluated
block by block or, where typical city blocks do not exist, by areas of 5
acres or less.  The "two-thirds" rule would apply within each area
evaluated when making a decision on collector sewer eligibility.

     Densities of less than one household for every two acres rarely
result in serious localized pollution or public health problems from the
use of properly operated on-site systems.  These areas should not be
considered to have had, on October 18, 1972, substantial habitation
warranting collection sewers from a pollution control standpoint.
-------
     B.  Cost-Effectiveness

     New collector sewers must be proven in the facility plan to be
necessary and cost-effective in addition to being eligible under the
definition of "substantial human habitation" and the two-thirds rule.

     New collector sewers should be funded only when the systems in use
(e.g. septic tanks or raw discharges from homes) for disposal of wastes
from the existing population are creating a public health problem, con-
taminating groundwater, or violating the point source discharge require-
ments of the Act.  Specific documentation of the nature and extent of
health, groundwater and discharge problems must be provided in the
facility plan.  Where site characteristics are considered to restrict
the use of on-site systems, such characteristics, (e.g. groundwater
levels, soil permeability, topography, geology, etc.) must be documented
by soil maps, historical data and other pertinent information.

     The facility plan must also document the nature, number and location
of existing disposal systems (e.g. septic tanks) which are malfunctioning.
A community survey of individual disposal systems is recommended for
this purpose, and is grant eligible.

     In addition, the facility plan must demonstrate, where population
density is less than 10 persons per acre, that alternatives are clearly
less cost-effective than new gravity collector sewer construction and
centralized treatment.  Such alternatives are cited in the previous
Administrator's memorandum of December 30, 1976, subject:  "Encouraging
Less Costly Wastewater Facilities for Small Conmunities" and Mr. Rhett's
memorandum of August 18, 1976 on "Eligibility of Septic Tanks and other
Small Treatment Systems".  A draft guidance document accompanied the
August 18 memorandum.  The draft policy represents the policy of the
Agency until issued in final form.

     The alternatives to be evaluated include the following:

     - measures to improve operation and maintenance of existing septic
       tanks including more frequent inspections, timely pumpouts, and
       prohibition of garbage grinders.

     - new septic tanks

     - holding tanks and "honey wagons"

     - various means of upgrading septic tanks, including mounds,
       alternate leaching fields and pressure sewers

     - other systems to serve individual households or a cluster
       of households.  Such systems include, for example, wastewater
       separation, water conservation and recycle systems where feasible.
-------
     The facility plan, where applicable, must examine alternatives such
as limited sewer service for a portion of a community.  For example,
septic systems work very well in many small towns except in one isolated
area such as a business district where open space for adequate on-site
disposal is not available.

     C.  Public Disclosure of Costs

     All projects, including collection systems, on which public hearings
were held after January 2, 1977, must comply fully with the requirements
of Program Requirements Memorandum 76-3 prior to approval.

     Agency policy is to ensure public disclosure of the costs of any
collection system projects where a public hearing was held on or before
January 2, 1977.  Such disclosure shall take the form of a prominently
published notice in a local newspaper, and the cost is grant eligible.
The Agency shall pay the cost of the notice if necessary to expedite the
project.

     The notice shall include the estimated monthly charge for operation
and maintenance, the estimated monthly debt service charge, the estimated
connection charge and the total monthly charge to a typical residential
customer for the new collection system being funded and any other associated
wastewater facilities required.  Such associated facilities would include
new treatment capacity needed to handle the flows from the new collection
system.

     The charges may be only rough estimates, and may be presented as a
range of possible costs when major unknowns exist such as whether or not
substantial parts of the project are grant eligible.

IV.  IMPLEMENTATION

     The States are to be advised of the issuance of this policy at
once.  All pending and future grant applications for collection system
projects or projects containing collection systems are to be reviewed
for compliance with this policy.

     The requirements of sections III-A and III-C are effective immediately.

     The requirements of Section III-B are effective immediately for all
projects which have received a step 1 facility planning grant but have
not yet received approval of their facility plan.

     For all other projects, the requirements of section III-B are
effective immediately unless the Regional Administrator determines, from
information in the facility plan and other sources, that a project is
necessary and cost-effective even though the full documentation required
by section III-B is not available.  In any case, the full requirements
of section III-B shall apply without exception to all projects being
reviewed for funding after September 30, 1977.
-------
V.  REFERENCES

     A.  Sections 201, 211, 212, P.L. 92-500.

     B.  40 CFR S3 35.905-19, 925-7, 925-13, Appendix B.

     C.  PPM 76-3, "Presentation of Local Government Costs of Wastewater
         Treatment Works in Facility Plans", August 16,  1976.

     D.  Memorandum to Regional Administrators from Russell E. Train,
         "Encouraging Less Costly Wastewater Facilities For Small
         Comnunities", December 30, 1976.7   -

     E.  Memorandum to Regional Administrators from 3fisft\fiT. Rhett, "Less
         Costly Treatment Systems", Augyist /18, 1976,
                                           M. Costle
-------
   \
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                          AUG051977
                                                         OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                         HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                              Program  Requirements Memorandum
                                              PRM  77-9
          Reallotment of Recovered Funds
TO:
          John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Admin
           ror Water Program Operations  (WH-546
Matthew Pilzys, Acting Deputy Assistant  Administrator
for Resources Management (PM-224)

Regional Administrators (I-X)
ATTN: Water Division Directors
      Management Division Directors
PURPOSE:

     The purpose of this memorandum is  to  set  forth  EPA policy regarding the
reallotment of funds recovered from P.L. 92-500 authorizations and subsequent
appropriations.

DISCUSSION:

     Unobligated portions of State  allotments  are, at the end of their initial
allotment periods, subject to reallotment  as provided for in section 205(b)(l)
of P.L. 92-500 and 40 CFR 35.910-2(a) and  (b).  However, the extent to which
recoveries are subject to reallotment after the termination date of an initial
allotment period is not as clearly  defined.  Section 205(b)(2) states that
recovered obligations which are "released  by the payment of the final voucher
for the project shall be immediately credited  to the State to which such sums
were last allotted.  Such released  sums shall  be added to the amounts last
allotted to such State and shall  be immediately available for obligation in
the same manner and to the same extent  as  such last  allotment."  Hence, funds
recovered upon the closeout of a project (on or after final payment) are
subject to reallotment after the termination date of the most recent allotment
in effect at the time of the closeout.  Funds  recovered as a result of the
termination of a project are treated in the same manner.
-------
     Neither the Act nor the regulations address the  reallotment  of other
recoveries, such as those resulting from underruns  or descoping--i.e.,
recovered obligations other than those which "remain  after final  payment, or
after termination of a project" (§35.910-2(0).

     Over the years of operating the construction grants program, it was  common
practice to treat all recoveries alike, and to have them remain in the  States
to which they were originally allotted.  Distinctions were not made between
those resulting from project closeouts and those resulting from actions taken
by EPA due to changes occurring in the process of constructing a  project.
However, because of the explicit requirement of section  205(b)(2), that practice
must be modified.

     The date of the most recent allotment of funds is important  for the
reallotment process.  $1 billion was allotted on May  18, 1977, and, in
accordance with the Fiscal Year 1977 Supplemental Appropriations  Act, is
subject to reallotment after May 3, 1980, three years after the date of enact-
ment.  (The $480 million appropriated under the Public Works Employment Act
will not be treated as an allotment for these purposes.)

POLICY:

     FY-75, 74 and 73 funds which the Regional Administrator determines were
recovered prior to May 18, 1977, as a result of the closing out of projects--
i.e., at final payment or upon termination—will be subject to reallotment
after September 30, 1977--the reallotment date of the $9 billion  allotted in
FY-76.  All other FY-75, 74 and 73 funds which were recovered prior to
May 18, 1977, will not be subject to reallotment on September 30, 1977.


     The foregoing policy is applicable only to the September 30, 1977
reallotment.  However, if the currently proposed legislation to extend  for
another year the reallotment date for FY-76 funds is  enacted, the above
policy will be applicable to the extended date, i.e., September 30, 1978
instead of September 30, 1977.

     For future fiscal years, a distinction will not  be made between recoveries
resulting from project closeouts or terminations and  those resulting from
underruns or descoping.  Accordingly, all recoveries  made subsequent to
May 17, 1977, regardless of how they are generated, will be subject to
reallotment on the basis of the procedure established in i205(b)(2) of  the
Act.  Therefore, funds recovered from May 18, 1977, until the date of the
next allotment of funds, will be subject to reallotment after May 3, 1980.

     When further funds are allotted, recoveries thereafter will  be subject
to the reallotment date of those funds.  That is, the reallotment date  for
recoveries always relates to the most recent allotment.
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                   utC 2S  1977         Construction Grants
                                       Program Requirements Memorandum
                                       PRM No. 78-1


SUBJECT:       Erosion and  Sediment Control in the
               Construction Grants Program

FROM:          John T.  Rhett,  Deputy Assistant AdministratorWc^^n f Qjh&r~
               for Water  Program Operations  (WH-546)       /

TO:            Regional Administrators  (I-X)
               ATTN:   Water Division Directors

Purpose:

     This memorandum establishes the policy pertaining to the require-
ments and procedures for  controlling erosion and sediment runoff caused
by the construction activity of projects funded under the EPA Construction
Grants Program.

     While engineering and  agronomic practices for erosion and sediment
control are site specific,  detailed information pertaining to these
practices can be found in a number of publications, including those
listed in Attachment B.   This  memorandum provides guidelines and general
principles to be used in  preparing facilities plans and project design
specifications and in conducting project inspections.

Discussion:

     Problems associated  with  erosion and sediment loads resulting from
construction activity have  long been recognized.  Erosion and subsequent
excess sediment runoff are  among the major factors directly responsible
for nonpoint source pollution  in streams and lakes.  Additional problems
which can occur include clogging of streams and lakes, alteration of
natural habitats, and damage to the aesthetics of surface waters.
-------
                                   -2-

     The on-going EPA construction grants  program will  continue  to
generate significant construction activity throughout the  country.
Ensuring that erosion and sediment control  are properly handled  in  the
process of constructing these waste treatment projects is  part of EPA's
overall responsibility.  In December 1976,  the Office of Water Planning
and Standards published a report entitled  "Nonpoint Source Control
Guidance, Construction Activities."  The document is to be used  by
States and areawide 208 agencies as a guide for establishing  a nonpoint
source pollution control program.

     EPA policy is designed to ensure that:

     1.  Erosion and sediment control will  be adequately addressed  and
handled in areas where wastewater treatment projects are proposed.

     2.  Appropriate soil conservation  measures are incorporated as part
of the engineering activities in the planning and design process, as
well as the construction phase of construction grant projects.
Policy:
     1.   Facilities planning (Step 1)  - Good  environmental  assessment
          or impact studies should investigate and  evaluate  the  potential
          for erosion and sediment runoff which could  occur  as a result
          of construction and operation of the project.  An effective
          erosion and sediment runoff control  program  should address
          measures to be taken during construction  and,  where appro-
          priate, permanent controls to be incorporated  into the completed
          project.  Other factors being equal, sites chosen  for  construc-
          tion of treatment facilities  should  be those which offer  the
          least potential for erosion.

               In environmentally sensitive areas (floodplains,  wetlands,
          coastal zones and estuaries,  etc.),  special  construction
          procedures and requirements should be employed to  minimize  harm
          to the sensitive areas.  All  practicable  measures  should  be utilized.
          When applicable, the requirements described  in PRM 76-4 (Coor-
          dination of Construction Grants Program with EPA-Corps of
          Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Permit Programs)  must also be
          implemented in conjunction with the  erosion  and sediment
          control program.

               Wherever State and local ordinances  pertaining to construc-
          tion activities are adequately defined, the  grantee should
          clearly specify in the facilities plan, steps  to be taken for
          controlling erosion and sediment in  order to comply with  the
          State and local ordinances.  However, the evaluation of the
          adequacy of a project's erosion and  sediment control plan
          should be based on the attached guidelines.
-------
                                   -3-
     2.    Design (Step 2)  - Appropriate provisions  of the erosion and
          sediment control  program specified in the facilities  plan
          should be implemented including:   (a) scheduling construction
          activities to minimize adverse impacts;  (b) providing plans
          and specifications for any permanent and  temporary erosion
          control  structures and; (c)  including specific erosion and
          sediment control  measures in O&M  manuals.  The construction
          specifications will  require  implementation of the specified
          erosion control  plan during  construction  of the project.

     3.    Construction (Step 3) - Inspections conducted during  construc-
          tion should evaluate implementation of and adherence  to temporary
          erosion and sediment control measures and their effectiveness.
          Attention should also be given to permanent erosion control
          structures during final inspections.

     Detailed guidance to be used in evaluating erosion and sediment
control  aspects of construction grant projects, including a pertinent
list of references, is attached.

Implementation:

     The measures specified in this memorandum and  its attachments are
required for all projects resulting from Step 1 grants awarded  after the
date of this memorandum.  Appropriate  provisions for erosion and sediment
control  should be incorporated to the maximum extent practicable in
other active construction grant projects.  For example, Step 2  and Step 3
measures should be applicable to those presently active Step 2  and Step 3
grant projects respectively.

Attachments
-------
                                                      Attachment A

                       Evaluation of Erosion  and
                       Sediment Control Measures
The objective of the program is to prevent and  correct  problems associated
with erosion and sediment runoff processes which  could  occur during and
after project construction.   The program should be  consistent with
applicable local ordinances  and the EPA Nonpoint  Source Pollution
Control Guidance.  Whenever  appropriate, the  program  should reflect the
following engineering principles.

     1.   Construction site  selection should  consider potential occurrence
          of erosion and sediment losses.   Study  of the site conditions
          should include soil and geologic limitations, topography,
          vegetation, wildlife habitats, proximity  to surface water,  and
          climate.

     2.   The project plan and layout should  be designed to fit the
          local topography and soil conditions.

     3.   When appropriate,  land grading and  excavating should be kept
          at a minimum to reduce the possibility  of creating runoff and
          erosion problems which require extensive  control measures.

     4.   Whenever possible, topsoil should be  removed  and stockpiled
          before grading begins.

     5.   Land exposure should be minimized in  terms  of area and  time.

     6.   Exposed areas subject to erosion should be  covered as quickly
          as possible by means of mulching or vegetation.

     7.   Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible.

     8.   Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
          runoff and sedimentation should be  provided during and  after
          construction.

     9.   Early completion of stabilized drainage system (temporary and
          permanent systems) will substantially reduce  erosion  potential.

     10.  Roadways and parking lots should be paved or  otherwise  stabilized
          as soon as feasible.

     11.  Clearing and grading should not be  started  until  a firm con-
          struction schedule is known and can be effectively coordinated
          with  the grading and clearing activity.
-------
                                   -2-

Because of technical limitations, it is recognized that the foregoing
principles cannot always be incorporated in a project plan.  Whenever
needed, however, these practices should be included.

Minimum Requirements

     In addition to the general engineering principles described in the
previous paragraph, the following items represent the minimum engineering
effort to be incorporated in development of the project.

1.   Facility Planning (Step 1)

     As part of the environmental assessment or environmental  impact
study, the potential for erosion and sediment runoff  should be identified
and evaluated.  In determining the scope of the study, the following items
should be considered and evaluated where appropriate:

          -  Soil and geologic characteristics
          -  Land topography and land use classification
          -  Drainage basin conditions
          -  Rainfall or wind characteristics

     In environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains and coastal
estuaries, etc., special problems including long slopes,  steep grades
and highly erodible soils should be identified and evaluated.   When
appropriate, special construction procedures and constraints associated
with these problems should be addressed and incorporated  in the plans
and specifications.  For project sites where dewatering operations  are
required during construction, adverse effects from the discharge of
silt-laden waters should be minimized by means of filtration or sedi-
mentation basins, or any other appropriate methods.

     For projects involving land treatment or disposal, methods of
application should be carefully studied and selected  to make sure that
soil erosion and sediment runoff is minimized.  In addition, requirements
for sediment control practices and their maintenance  after construction
is completed should be specified.

2.   Plans and Specifications (Step 2)

     The project plans and specifications should include  all structures
and practices designed for erosion and sediment control.   The  plan
should be consistent with the general sediment control program set  forth
in the facilities plan.  In addition, the plan should include  the following:
-------
                                   -3-

     a.   A schedule for land clearing  and grading  in  relation  to the
          corresponding  schedule for each  structure to be  built.  If at
          all  possible,  the clearing should immediately precede the
          construction activity.

     b.   Specifications for temporary  and permanent measures to be used
          for controlling erosion and sediment including a schedule and
          specific location for each measure.

     c.   A separate list containing:  (1)  chronological  completion dates
          for each temporary and permanent measure  for controlling
          erosion and sediment; (2) location,  type  and purpose  for each
          measure; and (3) dates when those temporary  measures  will be
          removed or replaced.  This list  will  serve as a  guide for con-
          tractors as well as field inspectors during  and  after construction.

     d.   Appropriate maintenance procedures for each  sediment  control
          structure should be specified in detail in the operation and
          maintenance manual required as part  of the construction grant.

3.   Construction (Step  3)

     The State, EPA and  other appropriate  local, State and Federal
agencies should coordinate their efforts to effectively carry out the
inspections by using the guide contained in the plans  and  specifications.
The objective of these inspections is not  only to ensure compliance, but
also to make sure that necessary corrective steps are  taken where it is
found that (1) sediment  control measures originally specified were not
adequate, and (2) additional measures are  needed for problems not anticipated
in the design phase.

Post Construction:

     The final project inspection should make  sure  that all temporary
sediment control measures are removed or replaced with permanent measures
and all permanent structures are built  as  specified.
-------
                                                  Attachment B
                              References
1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control
     Guidance. Construction Activities. U.S. EPA,  Office of Water
     Planning & Standards, Washington, D.C.  20460 (December 1976).

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Erosion and
     Sediment Control Planning and Implementation, EPA R27 2015.  U.S.
     Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.  (August 1972).

3.   Meyer, L. Donald and Kramer, Larry A., "Erosion Equations  Predict
     Land Slope Development," Agricultural Engineering,  Vol. 50,  No. 9
     (September 1969).

4.   Meyer, L.D., "Reducing Sediment Pollution by  Erosion Control on
     Construction Sites," paper presented at Seventh American Water
     Resources Conference, Washington, D.C. (October 1971).

5.   Meyer, L.D., et al., "Erosion Runoff and Revegetation of Denuded
     Construction Sites," Transactions of the American Society  of
     Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 14, No. 1, St. Joseph, Michigan
     (1971).

6.   Meyer, L.D., et al., "Mulch Rates for Erosion Control  on Steep
     Slopes," Soil Science Society of American Proceedings,  Vol.  34, No.
     6, Madison, Wisconsin (November/December 1970).

7.   Wischmeier, W.H., et al., "A Soil Erodibility Nomograph for  Farmland
     and Construction Sites."  Journal of Soil  and Water Conservation
     (September/October 1971).

8.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Water Program
     Operations, Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition  from
     Construction of Highways and Land Development, U.S. Government
     Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1971).

9.   U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal  Water Quality  Administration,
     Urban Soil Erosion and Sediment Control,  U.S.  Government Printing
     Office, Washington, D.C. (1970).

10.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Processes,  Procedures, and
     Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from All  Construction
     flctTvity. EPA 430/9-73-007. U.S. EPA. Office  of Air and Water
     Programs, Washington, D.C.  20460 (October 1973).
-------
                                   -2-
                                                 Attachment B
11.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Method to Control Fine-
     Grained Sediments Resulting from  Construction Activity, EPA 440/9-
     76-026, Office of Water Planning  and Standards, Washington, D.C.
     (December 1976).

12.  Local  Soil  and Water Conservation District Technical Guides on file
     at each Soil  Conservation Service Office.

13.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Methods of Quickly Vegetating
     Soils of Low  Productivity,  Construction Activities. EPA 440/9-75-
     006, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C. (July
     1975).
-------
m
I   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

^                     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                             OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                             HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                         Program Requirements Memorandum
                                         PRM No. 78-2
      Subject:  Discount Rate

      From:, (jL/John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrate,
               Ffor Water Program Operations (WH 546)
      To:       Regional  Water Division Directors
           Enclosed is a copy of the notice published by the Water Resources
      Council of the new discount rate of 6 5/8 percent.  The new rate was
      effective as of October 1, 1977.  Cost-effectiveness analyses in new
      facility planning starts are to be based on the rate of 6 5/8 percent.

           We have arranged to distribute the enclosed information to  consulting
      engineers through the newsletter of the Consulting Engineers Council.
      Please distribute copies of this information to the States for use in
      their programs.

      Enclosure
-------
              iiru
           U.S. Water Resources Council, 2120 L Street, N.W.,  Washington, D.C. 20037

 S''£ii'ri'4^5'^Ji{&^f^'?A^-'?'ft^^^

                              NOV 3   1377
  USDI   Guy R.  Martin
  USDA   M. Rupert Cutler
  ARMY   Michael Blumenfeld
  DOT   Owen W. Siler
  FPC   Francis J. Flynn
  COMM   Lucy A. Falcone
   HUD    Robert C. Embry, Jr,
   EPA    Tom Jorlir.g.
ENERGY    James L. Liverr.an
   OMB    Eliot Cutler
  JUST    James W. Moorman
   CEQ    Gus Speth
Subject:  Discount  Rate  and  Water Supply Act of 1958  Interest  Rate
The interest rate  to  be  used  by Federal agencies in  the  formulation
and evaluation of  plans  for water and related land resources  is
6 5/8 percent for  the  period  October 1, 1977, through  and  including
September 30, 1978.   Attached for your use and information is the
notice of change  in  the  discount rate which is to be  forwarded to
the Federal Regis t er.

The interest rate  determined  by the Treasury Department  in accord-
ance with the provisions of  Section 301(b) of the Water  Supply Act
of 1958 is  6.063  percent.
                                    Leo M. Eisel
                                    Director
At tachment
cc:   Chairman, River Basin  Commissions
     Chairmen, Inter-Agency  Committees
     Chairman, Tennesse-e Valley  Authority
-------
                   United States
              Water Resources Council
       Principles and Standards for Planning
         Water and Related Land Resources
              Change in Discount Rate



Notice is hereby given that the interest.rate  to be  used

by Federal agencies in the formulation and evaluation  of

plans for water and related land resources is  6 5/8  per-

cent for the period October 1, 1977, through and' including

September 30, 1978.


The rate has been computed in accordance with  Chapter  IV,

D., "The Discount Rate" in the "Standards for  Planning

Water and Related Land Resources" of the Water Resources

Council, as amended (39  FR 29242),  and  is to  be used  by

all Federal agencies in plan formulation and evaluation

of water and related land resources projects for the

purpose of discounting future benefits and computing

costs,  or otherwise converting benefits  and costs to a

common  time basis.
-------
The Department of the Treasury on October  14,  1977,

informed the Water Resources Council  pursuant  to

Chapter IV, D., (b) that the interest  rate  would  be

seven percent based upon the formula  set  forth in

Chapter IV, D., (a):  " * * * the average  yield during

the preceding Fiscal Year on interest-bearing  market-

able securities of the United States  which,  at the  time

the computation is made, have terms of  15  years or  more

remaining to maturity * * *."  However,  Chapter IV,  D. ,

(a) further provides " * * * [t]hat in  no  event shall

the rate be raised or lowered more  than  one-quarter  of.

one percent for any year."  Since the  rate  in  Fiscal

Year 1977 was 6 3/8 percent (41 FR  48010),  the rate  for

Fiscal Year 1278 is 6 5/8 percent.


                      /s/ Lev/is D. Walker

                      LfJ Leo M. Eisel
                     J   Director


Dated :
-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON, D C  20460
                            17 FE8 19/8
                                                          OFF'ICfc" OP WA i ER AND
                                                                     ' TRIALS
                                                         i i-^2 ARDOUG M \" i
                                                  Construction Grants
                                                  Program Requirement  Memorandum
                                                  PRM No. 78-3
SUBJECT:  Buy American

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator \ ( t~*
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional  Administrators


     Section 215 of the Federal Hater Pollution  Control  Act,  as  amended
by section 39 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (°ublic Law 9^-°17)
provides that no grant (Step 3 grant), for which application  is  received
by the Regional Administrator after February 1,  1978, shall  be made
unless preference is given to the use of domestic construction materials
in the construction of sewage treatment works (Buy American).

     Municipalities applying for Step 3 grants  after February 1, 197°.,
must be notified that the Buy-American ^revision will apply to procurements
under those Step 3 grants.  Grant awarding officials must insure that
grants awarded prior to amendment of the Construction Grant Regulations
include a special condition requiring the grantee to give preference to
domestic construction materials pursuant to section 215 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and EPA implementing regulations
and guidelines.

     The following guidance is provided to aid  in implementation of the
Buy American provision.  The definitions have been adapted from  the current
Federal Procurement Regulations which EPA has been directed to follow, where
applicable.

     "Construction material" means any article,  material  or supply
brought to the construction site for incorporation in the building or
work.  An unmanufactured construction material  is a "domestic construction
material" if it has been mined or produced in the United States.  A
manufactured construction material is a "domestic construction material"
if it has been manufactured in the United States substantially all from
articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced or manufactured (as
the case may be) in the United States.  Generally, a construction material
is considered a domestic construction material  if the cost of its components
-------
which have been mined,  produced,  or manufactured  in  the  United States
exceeds 50 percent of the cost of all  of its  components.   "Component" means
any article, material,  or supply  directly incorporated in  a  construction
material.

     A component shall  be considered to have  been "mined,  produced, or
manufactured in the United States" (regardless  of its source in  fact),  if
the article, material,  or supply  in which it  is incorporated was manufactured
in the United States and the component is of  a  class or  kind determined
by the Regional Administrator to  be not mined,  produced, or  manufactured in  the
United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial  quantities
and of a satisfactory quality.

     Bidding documents  for construction work  which is funded by  a
Step 3 grant for which  application is made after February  1, 1978, must
include the following statement:

               INFORMATION REGARDING BUY AMERICAN PROVISION

     (a)  The Buy American Provision of Public  Law 95-217  (section 215
          of Public Law 92-500 as amended) as implemented  by EPA
          regulations and guidance, generally requires that  preference
          be given to the use of domestic construction material  in the
          performance of this contract.

     (b)  Bids or proposals offering use of nondomestic  construction
          material may be acceptable for award  if the Regional Administrator
          waives the Buy American provision basod upon those factors  that
          are deemed relevant, including:  (i)  such  use  is not in the public
          interest; (ii) the cost is unreasonable; (iii) the available
          resources of the Agency are not sufficient to  implement the provision;
          or (iv) the articles, materials, or supplies of  the class
          or kind to be used or the articles, materials, or  supplies  from
          which they are manufactured are not mined, produced, or
          manufactured, as the case may be, in  the United  States in
          sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and
          of a satisfactory quality for the particular project.   The
          Regional Administrator may also waive the Buy  American provision  if
          it is determined that application of this  provision is contrary to
          multilateral  government procurement agreements.  Such  evidence as
          the EPA Regional Administrator may deem relevant shall be furnished
          to justify use of nondomestic construction material.
-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                            WASHINGTON, D C   20460
                        FEB 19/8
                                        Construction Grants
                                        Program Requirements  Memorandum
                                        PRM'NO.  78-5
SUBJECT:  Interim Management of FY 1978 State Priority Lists
          Under the 1977 Amendments
FROi'i:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations   (UH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators
PURPOSE

     This Memorandum outlines EPA policy concerning annual  State project
priority list r.anageinent for the remainder of FY 1?7G under the Clean
Water Act Amendments of 1577.  [Except as indicated harein,  the policy
and procedures for priority list .,ianage;vient are still reflected
77-7, Jianagement of State Project Priority Lists.
in PRii
     The Clean Water Act of 1977 included several  amendments  to P.L.  92-
500 that could potentially affect existing State priority systems  and
State priority list management.  The scope of these changes will  not  be
known until interim regulations implementing the priority list provisions
are publisiiid.  The current situation is as follows:

     1.   The FY 197G priority lists are the basis for considering
project funding through September 30, 1978.  Most FY 1978 priority
lists, under the $4.5 billion expected appropriation, have been submitted
and reviewed by EPA pursuant to the policies and procedures outlined  in
PRfi 77-7.  I'iany FY 1978 lists have been approved or are approvable,
pending receipt of the FY 1978 funds.
-------
                                   -2-

     2.   The FY 1978 authorization for $4.5 billion, contained in the
1977 Amendments, has been allotted (subject to appropriation) in accordance
with the regulation published in the Federal Register on January 10,
1978.  An appropriation of $4.5 billion is expected to be enacted in the
next couple of months.

     3.   Regulations in response to the 1977 Amendments are currently
in formulation, and will not be published in interim final  fora before
.'lay, 1978.

     4.   i!o projects may be funded using the expected FY 1978 appropriation
until a FY 1 L ,'8 priority list has been approved by the Regional Administrator
under current policy and procedures.

POLICY

     1.   States and Regions are to continue to process grant applications
up to the point of grant award for projects which reasonably can be
expected to receive grants uurincj FY 73, either L,.;cause the projects are
on or expected to be on an approved or approval!c priority list.  States
iiiay suo..;it but not actually certify the application to EPA for award,
however, until funds are available and the priority list approved.

     2.   Nothing in the 1977 Amendments mandates i;.v,ieciiate changes to
current State priority planning for the FY 1C73 planning year.  States
i.iay elect to propose chances based on the 1377 A.viendments for FY 1973,
but should be advised that such changes cannot be considered by EPA
until publication of intsri... regulations in ;,ay, 1:78.  As a general
policy, the Regions should follow t!;c procedures for interim r.ianaGOi.iant
of the FY 1978 priority lists as outlined Jelot::

       o  For those States with currently approved or approvable FY 78
          priority lists, no modification for compliance with the 1977
          Amendments is required or expected.

       o  States which are currently without an approved or approvable
          FY 1978 priority list should be directed to comply with the
          State program planning regulations (40 CFR 35.563 through
          c5.5oo) and the existing procedures in PRM 77-7 to avoid delay
          iii making awards once funds are made available.  The Region
          should be ready to approve all FY 1978 lists under the existing
          policy as soon as funds are appropriated.  Projects may not be
          funded in any State in the absence of an approved priority
          list.
-------
     Step 3 contracts must include the following paragraph in addition
to Appendix C-2:

                                 BUY AMERICAN

               In accordance with the Buy American provision
            in Public Law 95-217 (section 215 of Public Law 92-500
            as amended) and implementing EPA regulations and
            guidelines, the Contractor agrees that preference
            will be given to domestic construction material
            by the contractor, subcontractors, materialmen,
            and suppliers in the performance of this contract.


     The Regional Administrator may waive the Buy American provision
based upon those factors that are deemed relevant, including: (i)  such
use is not in the public interest; (ii) the cost is unreasonable;  (iii)
the available resources of the Agency are not sufficient to implement the
provision (subject to the concurrence of the Deputy Administrator);  or
(iv) the articles, materials, or supplies of the class or kind  to  be
used or the articles, materials, or supplies from which they are manufactured
are not mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the
United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial  quantities
and of a satisfactory quality for the particular project.

     If the Regional Administrator believes that application of the  Buy
American provision would be contrary to multilateral government procurement
agreements, the Regional Administrator may request the Deputy Administrator
to waive the provision.

     The amount of cost differential by which dom2stic construction
material may be given preference shall generally be the sum determined
by computing up to six percent of the bid or offered price of
materials of foreign origin including all costs of delivery to  the
construction site, including any applicable duty, whether or not
assessed.  Computations will normally be based on costs on the  date
of opening of bids or proposals.

     The Regional Administrator may utilize the appropriate procedures
of 40 CFR 35.939 in making determinations, and the "Buy-American"
procedures, regulations, precedents and requirements of other Federal
departments and agencies shall generally be observed.

     The Buy American provision is new to the EPA municipal  wastewater
construction grants program, and no specific EPA precedents exist.  To
help create such precedents, where it is determined that the Buy American
provision should be waived, or when problems or questions arise, it  should
be brought to the attention of the Director of the Municipal Construction
Division and the Assistant General Counsel-Grants.
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                   17FEB1978          Construction  Grants
                                        Program  Requirements  Memorandum
                                        PRM No.  78-4
SUBJECT:   Grant Eligibility of Land  Acquired  for  Storage  in
          Land Treatment Systems

FROM:     John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations   (WH-546)

TO:       Regional  Administrators
          Regions  I thru X
PURPOSE

     This memorandum provides additional  guidance concerning grant
eligibility of land acquired by purchase, leasing, or easements  for use
in land treatment systems.

DISCUSSION

     The Agency has previously issued three PRM's on  acquiring  land for
use in land treatment of wastewaters and  sludges.  PRM 75-25 (formerly
PGM-49) covers the interpretation of the  eligibility  of land acquisition
costs for land treatment processes (wastewaters).  PRM 75-39 (formerly
PGM-67) covers the eligibility of land acquisition costs for the ultimate
disposal of residues from wastewater treatment processes (sludges).  PRM
77-5 covers the eligiblity of leasing or  easements in lieu of fee simple
purchase for use in either wastewater treatment alternatives or  sludge
management systems.  The Clean Water Act  of 1977 (P.L. 95-217)  requires
changes in Section 35.905-23 (definition  of treatment works) and 35.940-
3 (costs allowable, if approved) of the construction  grants regulations
(40 CFR Part 35).  These changes in the construction  grants regulations
require a change in eligibility of land costs as described by PRM 75-25,
but do not affect PRM 75-39 or PRM 77-5.
-------
POLICY

     The Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments  of 1977 (P.L.
95-217) make the  land that will  be used for storage of treated  wastewater
in land treatment systems prior to land application an eligible cost as
of December 27, 1977.  Previously, the cost of land for  the temporary
storage of effluent was not eligible (PRM 75-25).   Acquirement  of land
for storaga purposes must be by purchase rather than lease or easement.

     There are two approaches for providing temporary storage that will
be cost eligible.

     1.   The cost of land will  be eligible for all  ponds  constructed
          specifically to meet storage needs due to climate or  a seasonal
          imbalance between wastewater supply and  application schedules.
          The period and total volume of storage provided  should be
          commensurate with the discussion in Section 5.3  (pages 5-30
          thru 5-38) of the Design Manual  on Land  Treatment of  Municipal
          Wastewater (EPA 625/1-77-008).   Those storage  ponds should be
          designed with the maximum depth appropriate for  site  conditions.

     2.   All or  part of the land will be eligible for ponds which are
          constructed for combination treatment and storage purposes if
          such combination ponds meet the definitions and  criteria as
          listed  in (a) through (d) below:

          (a)  Storage volume is defined as that portion of the pond
          desianed to provide the total  storage needs due  to climate or
          a seasonal imbalance between wast&water  supply and application
          schedules as for (1) abova.  Storaga volume could represent
          the entire volume of a separate call  or  that portion  above the
          treatment volume in a combined treatment/storage cell.

          (b)  Treatment volume is that portion of the pond specifically
          designed for biological  stabilization of the wastewater.   It
          may be  the entire volume of a treatment  cell  or  the depth
          below the liquid level that was designed for treatment in a
          combined treatment/storage cell.

          (c)  If the volume provided for storage  is greater than the
          volume  provided for treatment in any cell  of the pond, then
          the total land area for that cell  is eligible.

          (d)  If the volume provided for storage  is equal  to or less
          than the volume provided for treatment in any  cell  of the
          pond, then the eligible area will  be determined  as the ratio
          of the  storage volume to the total  volume of that cell.
-------
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE

     The provisions of this program requirements memorandum apply to all
projects which had not been given Agency approval  of the Step 1 facilities
plan as of December 27, 1977.   These provisions supplement PRM #75-25,
which remains in effect.

REFERENCES

     Program Requirements Memorandum 75-25 of July 18,  1975
      (formerly PGM-49)
     Program Requirements Memorandum 75-39 of April  2,  1975
      (formerly PGM-67)
     Program Requirements Memorandum 77-5 of December 15, 1976
     40 CFR 35.905-23
     40 CFR 35.940-3
     EPA 625/1-77-008: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
-------
                                   -3-

IMPLEMENTATION

     All  States should immediately  be informed of  this interim priority
list policy.   States  should  continue to  process grant applications as
provided  above.  Guidance on preparation of  FY 1979  priority systems and
lists under the proposed priority list regulations will be issued by
Headquarters  no later than Hay,  1978.
-------
tf
 \
 I    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                  CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                     '97B          PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                                  PRM No. 78-6
 SUBJECT:   Industrial Cost Recovery—Interim Guidance


 FROM:      John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
           for Water Program Operations  (WH-546)

 TO:        Regional Administrators, Regions I thru X

 ATTN:      Water Division Directors
 I.   ISSUE:

     This memorandum establishes interim guidance on the implementation
 of industrial cost recovery  (ICR) requirements under the Clean Water Act
 of 1977.

 II.  DISCUSSION;

     Section 24 of the Clean Water Act exempts from ICR requirements,
 any industrial user which discharges 25,000 gpd or less of sanitary
 waste or a volume of process waste, or combined process and sanitary
 waste equivalent to  25,000 gpd or less, of sanitary waste if the discharge
 does not contain pollutants  which interfere, or are incompatible with,
 or contaminate, or reduce the utility of sludge.  Regardless of any
 subsequent change in the Act which might lower the volume of discharge
 exempted from ICR, industrial users exempt under the current law will
 never be liable for payments which might have been due after December 31,
 1977, until a change in the  Act.  In addition, an ICR system can be
 based on a system wide approach, instead of being based on each individual
 project (regulations to be issued in I lay will provide guidance on this
 provision).
     Section 75 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to study the efficiency
 of, and the need for, the payment by industrial users.  A report of
 findings from this study must be submitted to the Congress by December
 27, 1978.  Until June 30, 1979, EPA can not require grantees to enforce
 provisions which require industrial users to make ICR payments.  Any
 payment by industrial users  which is due after December 31, 1977,  but
 before  July 31, 1979,  (the moratorium) shall be paid after the moratorium
-------
                                   -2-

in accordance with the applicable ICR requirement at that time.   The
payment may be made in equal annual installments prorated over the
remaining useful life of the treatment works.

     The Conference Report on section 75 states that:

     (1)  EPA is to continue to make grants and not to withhold any
funding due to failure to comply with current ICR requirements.

     (2)  The moratorium on ICR payments does not exempt any grantee
from the requirement to develop an ICR system.

     (3)  At the end of the moratorium, if the Congress has not changed
the ICR provisions, grantees must begin to collect ICR.

     Regulations implementing these sections and detailed guidelines
will be issued at a later time, but the following policies are established
for immediate use.

III. POLICY;

     1.  Any grant payments withheld due to ICR requirements shall be
released.   (However, grant payments being withheld for any other requirements
are not to be released.)

     2.  Grantees should be advised that they are not exempt from the
requirement to develop ICR systems during the moratorium, and that the
cost of developing the system is grant eligible.  Any ICR system approved
by the Regional Administrator must exempt users discharging the equivalent
of 25,000 gpd or less of sanitary waste.

     3.  EPA officials shall not require grantees to enforce the payment
of ICR by industrial users for the period between December 28, 1977,
and June 30, 1979.  Grantees may collect ICR from users discharging more
than the equivalent of 25,000 gpd of sanitary waste, but no payment
to the Federal government shall be made.  If grantees choose to collect
ICR they shall hold 50 percent  (the portion which would be sent to EPA
in the absence of a moratorium) of the amounts they collect until June 30,
1979, or until EPA provides disbursement guidance, and shall invest those
amounts in accordance with ICR Guidelines.

     4.  Grantees must continue to monitor industrial users during the
moratorium to determine their ICR payment obligation in case ICR payments
resume after June 30, 1979.

     5.  Any ICR due for the grantee's ICR year ending before January 1,
1978, must be collected and disbursed in accordance with current ICR
requirements.

IV.  IMPLEMENTATION;

     These policies are effective retroactive to December 27, 1977.
-------
*»*<
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           WASHINGTON, D C.  20460
                                                           OFFICE OF WA I ER AND
                                                          HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                           Construction Grants
                                           Program Requirements Memorandum
                                           PRM No. 78-7
   SUBJECT:  Combined Step 2 and Step 3 Construction Grant
            Awards  (Step 2+3)

   FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrate
            for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

   TO:       Regional Administrators
            ATTN:   Water Division Directors
   I.    PURPOSE

        This memorandum establishes Agency policy on award of Step 2+3
   construction  grants during  FY 1978 as provided in the Clean Water Act of
   1977, prior to  the promulgation of regulations implementing the combined
   grant provisions of the Act.

   II.   DISCUSSION

        Section  203(a) of the  Clean Water Act of 1977 provides for award of
   a single construction grant for the combination of Step 2 and Step 3 work
   for  construction of treatment works for communities with populations of
   25,000 or less  and an estimated total Step 3 construction cost of
   $2,000,000 or less  ($3,000,000 or less in States with unusually high costs
   of construction as determined by the Administrator).  The effect of this
   provision on  construction grant funds is to obligate the funds for both
   design and construction at  the time of award of the Step 2+3 grant.

   III. POLICY

        Municipal  applicants that meet the minimum requirements set forth in
   this memorandum are eligible for award of a Step 2+3 construction grant,
   and  the Regional Administrators are authorized to make such an award upon
   their determination that these requirements have been satisfactorily met.
-------
                                    -2-
     In most cases, separate contracts are entered into for Step 2 and
for Step 3 work.  A grantee may continue to do so when it receives a
Step 2+3 grant.  A grantee is not required to enter into a single contract
for preparation of plans and specifications along with construction when
it receives a Step 2+3 grant.

IV.  MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

     EPA Regional Offices will review all Step 2+3 applications for
compliance with the following:

     1.  Population.   The population of the applicant municipality must
         be 25,000 or less as determined by most recent United States
         Census information.

     2.  Cost.  The total estimated Step 3 construction cost of treatment
         works necessary to comply with the requirements of the Clean
         Water Act of 1977 must not exceed $2,000,000 (the cost is
         exclusive of supporting costs such as technical or administrative
         services) or $3,000,000 in States determined by the Deputy
         Assistant Administrator for Water Program Operations to have
         unusually high costs of construction.  At the present time,
         Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota and New York are
         so designated.  Based upon Heeds Survey standard cost curves,
         cost in these States were determined to be more than one standard
         deviation from the norm.

     3.  Priority Certification.  The States must provide priority
         certification for the combined Step 2 and 3 project.  Projects
         which appear on an approved priority list for Step 2 funding
         but not for Step 3 funding are not eligible for a Step 2+3
         award.  States may amend their project priority list to provide
         priority for the combined steps; however, such amendments must
         be consistent with the approved State priority system.

     The total amount of the Step 2+3 award must derive from the current
State allocation.

V.  GRAiJT CONDITIONS

     Step 2+3 grants are subject to all requirements that apply to separate
Step 2 and Step 3 grants except that only a single application is required
and plans and specifications are not required prior to grant award.
Additional requirements of a Step 2+3 grant award are:

     1.  That the grantee identify and maintain a firm schedule for the
         submission of construction plans and specifications, suitable
         for bidding purposes, Operation and Maintenance Manual, and an
         approvable user charge/industrial cost recovery system (UC/ICR); and
-------
                               -3-


     2.   Plans  and specifications and  the  UC/ICR  systems must  be  submitted
         and approved  in  writing  by  the  Regional  Administrator prior  to
         advertisement for bids for  the  Step  3  construction work;  and

     3.   The cost of all  Step 3 construction  work initiated prior to
         approval of plans and specifications shall  be  disallowed with
         the exception of the cost of  those  items specifically authorized
         in accordance with procedures established under s35.925-18(b)
         of the current construction grant regulation.

VI.  IMPLEMENTATION

     States are to be advised at  once  of the  Agency's  policy with regard
to this  subject area and are to be requested  to begin  immediately review-
ing individual  grant applications to implement  the requirements set  forth
above.  This policy shall not apply  to Step  2 grant applications  received
by the Regions  prior to the effective  date of this PRM.
                                                             GPO 927 009
-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                             WASHINGTON, D.C  20460
                                FEB 1 3 1978
                                                             OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                             HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                   Construction Grants
                                   Program Requirements Memorandum
                                   PRM No. 78-8
SUBJECT:  Rejection of All Bids:  Guidance for EPA
          Concurrence Function
                                       ^~
FROM:     John T. Rhett
          Deputy Assistant Administrator/
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
          Joseph M. Zorc
          Assistant Gener
TO:       Water Division Directors (I-X)
          Regional Counsels (I-X)
                                                    »
PURPOSE;

     The purpose of this PRM is to set forth a revised Agency procedure
for handling a proposed rejection by a grantee of all bids on Step 3
projects.

POLICY;

     It is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency that
procurement for Step 3 construction contracts will be undertaken in a
manner to best achieve free and open competition.  40 CFR § 35.936-3.
Achievement of that Federal interest requires a standard which inhibits
rejection of all bids and resolicitation.  While the Environmental
Protection Agency regulations provide that a grantee may reserve the
right to reject all bids [40 CFR § 35.938-4(h)(2)],  the exercise of that
right is contingent upon a grantee's demonstration of good cause for
that proposed action.  Any good cause demonstration must reflect that
the public interest is best served by rejection of all bids, considering
applicable Environmental Protection Agency requirements.  Additionally,
the absence of good cause for rejection of all bids is incompatible with
the good faith efforts of all associated parties within the grants
process as well as self-defeating in terms of local water pollution
abatement efforts.
-------
DISCUSSION;

     The Environmental Protection Agency has established a concurrence
function, regarding a grantee's proposed rejection of all bids on Step 3
construction grant projects, to determine whether adequate good cause is
demonstrated.  The following criteria are representative of circumstances
in which good cause for rejection of all bids may be found:

     (1)  The specifications are ambiguous, inadequate, restrictive, or
     otherwise deficient and an addendum to the original invitation for
     bids is no longer possible.

     (2)  The needs of the grantee have changed and the change could
     not be imposed upon bidders consistent with applicable procure-
     ment requirements.

     (3)  The specification requirement(s) is(are) determined not to
     be necessary.

     (4)  The bids received indicate that the grantee's quality
     requirements were overstated.

     (5)  The amounts of all acceptable bids (i.e., responsive and
     responsible) are reasonable but the grantee is unable to fund the
     non-Federal share of project costs associated with the lowest
     acceptable bid (variables to consider, in this regard, are the
     financial capability of the grantee, the dollar amounts of the
     bids and their percent over the engineer's estimate).

     (6)  The amounts of all otherwise acceptable bids (i.e., respon-
     sive and responsible) are unreasonable.  This is an obvious matter
     for subjective judgment including some deference to the procuring
     entity and concerns various factors among which is the validity
     of the engineer's estimate.

     (7)  The bids received failed to provide sufficient competition
     to insure fair prices.

     (8)  The bids:

          (a)  were not independently arrived at in open competition;

          (b)  were collusive; or

          (c)  were submitted in bad faith.
-------
      (9)  Applicable Federal law or policy  (for example, the National
     Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) requires delay
     or further study of the project.

     Good cause for rejection of all bids may not be found where the
following is evidenced:

      (1)  Litigation is instituted concerning contract award, although
     litigation may prove a proper ground for rejection of all bids
     where prolonged.

      (2)  The specification requirements are relaxed by a grantee and
     the relaxation would not materially affect competition and would
     result in only minor savings.

      (3)  The invitation for bids contained omissions, errors or ambiguities
     which did not adversely affect competition, if:

          (a)  award would result in a binding contract concerning all
          material requirements;

          (b)  performance would satisfy the needs of the grantee; and

          (c)  the rules of formal advertising, as contained in Agency
          regulation, or fundamental principles of procurement necessary
          to insure free and open competition, would not be violated.

      (4)  A local or in-State bidder has not submitted the low bid.

GRANT ELIGIBILITY;

     Nothing in this PRM prohibits a Regional Administrator, in recognition
of a paramount Federal interest, from limiting the amount of grant
assistance on any resolicitation to the Federal share of the lowest bid
which could have been accepted by a grantee, or from requiring bid rejection.

PROCEDURE:

     The above criteria should provide sufficient guidance to permit
each Regional Water Division to establish procedures for review of
proposed rejections of all bids and concurrence or nonconcurrence on the
part of the Agency.  Additional review by Headquarters, on a case-by-
case basis,  is not a requirement for the performance of the Agency
concurrence function and generally need not be sought.  Advice must be
requested from Regional Counsels in matters concerning rejection of all
bids.  Headquarters should be involved in cases which concern issues of
policy definition.  A copy of the Regional Office memorandum or other
record of each concurrence/nonconcurrence will be forwarded to both the
Headquarters Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction
Division (WH-547) and the Assistant General Counsel, Grants (A-134).
-------
     Generally, after rejection of all  bids  the  plans  and  specifications
or bidding documents will  require modification to  assure the  correction
of the circumstances which led to rejection.   In no  case will  negotiation
with a low bidder be utilized in lieu of rejection of  all  bids and  read-
vertising in order for the grantee to get within budget.

Cancellation:

     This PRM cancels Harold P. Cahill's memorandum  of September 1, 1976,
(subjet:  "Rejection of Bids on Step III Construction  Grant Projects:), and
that of Jack Washburn, dated November 6, 1976, (subject:   "Headquarters
Concurrence with Regional  Offices' Recommendation  on Rejection of Bids  by
Grantees").  The policy and procedures  established in  this memorandum are
effective immediately.
-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                         OFFICE OF WA PER AND
               */!AD *7   1Q/£i                           HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
               MAK O   13/0             Construction Grants
                                          Program Requirements  Memorandum
                                          PRM # 78-9
SUBJECT:  Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators
          Attn:  Water Division Directors


  I. PURPOSE

     This memorandum supersedes Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM)
No. 77-8, on construction grant funding of sewage collection  system
projects and amends that policy in accordance with P.L. 95-217.   This
memorandum sets forth guidance for rigorous review of grant applications
to ensure that proposed projects meet the established requirements  of
both P.L. 92-500 and P.L. 95-217, plus the construction grant regulations.

 II. DISCUSSION

     Sewage collection system projects may be grant eligible  projects
under P.L. 92-500 (the Act).  Eligibility is limited, however,  by
Section 211 of the Act which provides for funding of collection systems
only (1) for the replacement or major rehabilitation of an existing
collection system or (2) for new collection systems in existing communities.

     Sewage collection systems are defined in 40 CFR S35.905-19 as:

          For the purpose of §35.925-13, each, and all, of the common
     lateral sewers, within a publicly-owned treatment system,  which are
     primarily installed to receive wastewaters  directly from facilities
     which convey wastewater from individual structures or from private
     property, and which include service connection "Y" fittings designed
     for connection with those facilities.  The  facilities which convey
     wastewater from individual structures or from private property to
     the public lateral sewer, or its equivalent, are specifically
     excluded from the definition, with the exception of pumping units,
     and pressurized lines, for individual structures or groups of
     structures when such units are cost-effective and are owned and
     maintained by the grantee.
-------
                              -2-

     The eligibility of sewage collection system  projects  is  further
defined in 40 CFR §35.925-13,  which reads:

          That, if the project is  for,  or includes  sewage  collection
     system work, such work (a)  is for  replacement  or major rehabilitation
     of an existing sewer system pursuant to S35.927-3(a)  and is  necessary
     to the total integrity and performance of the  waste treatment works
     servicing such community, or  (b)  is  for a new  sewer system  in a
     community in existence on October  18,  1972,  with sufficient  existing
     or planned capacity to adequately  treat such collected sewage.
     Replacement or major rehabilitation  of an existing  sewer system may
     be approved only if cost-effective and must  result  in a  sewer
     system design capacity equivalent  only to that of the existing
     system plus a reasonable  amount for  future growth.  A community,
     for purposes of this section, would  include  any area  with substantial
     human habitation on October 18, 1972.   No award may be made  for a
     new sewer system in a community in existence on October  18,  1972,
     unless it is further determined by the Regional Administrator that
     the bulk (generally two-thirds) of the flow  design  capacity  through
     the sewer system will be  for  waste waters originating from  the
     community (habitation) in existence  on October 18,  1972.

     The above sections of the EPA regulations implement Section  211 of
P.L. 92-500.

     Section 36 of P.L. 95-217 amends Section 211 of P.L.  92-500  to
preclude use of the population density  criterion  in PRM  77-8  as  a test
of grant eligiblity for collector  sewer projects  but permits  use  of the
criterion for evaluating alternatives.  A one household  per two  acre
density criterion may be used  only for  identifying  less  closely  populated
areas where individual or other small wastewater  treatment systems are
likely to be more cost-effective than collector sewers and thus must
be evaluated in detail if collector sewers  are proposed  for such  areas.
Such use of the population density criterion should assist with  and
simplify the cost-effectiveness analysis  for collector sewer  projects.

     All treatment works funded under the Construction Grants Program
must be cost-effective to comply with the requirements of  the Acts.
Treatment works are defined in Section  212 to include sewage  collection
systems.  EPA cost-effectiveness requirements are found  in 40 CFR
S35.925-and in Appendix A to 40 CFR, Part 35.

     Public disclosure of costs is a fundamental  prerequisite for all
grants projects, including collection systems. Program  Requirements
Memorandum 76-3, "Presentation of  Local Government  Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Works in Facility Plans," August 16, 1976, requires that cost
information be presented at all public  hearings held on  facility  plans
-------
                                   -3-

     after January 2, 1977.   However,  public  hearings  were  held  on many
     collection system projects prior  to this date.  Special measures
     are necessary to ensure the public is  aware of  the cost  implications
     of collection systems prior to their approval.

          The following policy is to be followed in  preparing  future
     grant applications for collection  system projects.   This  policy
     supplements all  existing Agency regulations and policy statements.
     It provides guidance for more rigorous review of  grant applications
     to ensure that proposed projects meet  the established  requirements
     of the law and regulations.  Compliance  with this policy  will help
     to assure that only grant eligible and cost-effective  collection
     system projects  are funded by EPA.

III. Policy

     EPA policy on the funding of sewage collection  systems is as
follows:

     A- Substantial human habitation

          New collector sewer projects  are  eligible  for funding  only  in
     a community in existence on October 18,  1972, with sufficient
     existing or planned capacity to adequately treat  such  collected
     sewage.  A community qualifying for Federal grant assistance
     to construct a collector sewer system  may be a  geographic or
     jurisdictional area that is smaller than the jurisdiction of the
     municipality applying for the treatment  facility  grant.   The
     Title II regulation states in Section  35.925-13 that a community
     would include any area with substantial  human habitation  on
     October 18, 1972.  The bulk (generally two-thirds)  of  the flow
     design capacity through the sewer  system is to  be for  wastewaters
     originating from the habitation exsting  on October 18, 1972.

          The Agency policy is that areas to  be served by new  collector
     sewer projects must meet the requirement for "substantial human
     habitation."  Habitation existing  as of  October 18, 1972, should
     be evaluated block by block or, where  typical city blocks do not
     exist, by areas  of five acres or  less  to determine if  it  is substan-
     tial .  Collector pipes designed primarily to serve blocks or five
     acre areas without substantial human habitation as of  October 18,
     1972, would not be eligible for grant  assistance.

     B. Cost-effectiveness

          New collector sewers must be  proven in the facility  plan to be
     necessary and cost-effective in addition to being eligible  under
     the "substantial human habitation" and the two-thirds  rule  require-
     ments.
-------
                                   -4-

     New collector sewers  should  be funded  only when  the  systems  in use
(e.g., septic tanks or raw discharges from  homes) for disposal of wastes
from the existing^ population are  creating a public  health problem,
contaminating groundwater, or violating  the point source  discharge
requirements of the Act.   Specific  documentation of the nature and
extent of health, groundwater and discharge problems  must be  provided  in
the facility plan,  Where  site characteristics are  considered to  restrict
the use of on-site systems, such  characteristics, (e.g.,  groundwater
levels, soil permability,  topography, geology, etc.)  must be  documented
by soil maps, historical data and other  pertinent information.

     The facility plan must also  document the  nature, number  and  location
of existing disposal systems (e.g., septic  tanks) which are malfunction-
ing.  A community survey of individual disposal systems is recommended
for this purpose, and is grant eligible.

     Where the population  density within the collection system area is
less than 1.7 persons per  acre (one household  per two acres), collector
sewer projects shall be considered  non-cost-effective unless  a severe
pollution or public health problem  is specifically  documented and
collector sewers are shown to be  clearly less  costly  than any of  the
alternatives for sparsely  populated areas as cited  below.

     In addition, the facility plan must demonstrate, where population
density is less than ten persons  per acre,  that alternatives  are  less
cost-effective than new gravity collector sewer construction  and
centralized treatment.  Such alternatives are  cited in  the previous
Administrator's memorandum of December 30,  1976, subject: "Encouraging
Less Costly Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities."

     The alternatives to  be evaluated  include  the following:

--measures to improve operation and maintenance of  existing septic
tanks, including more frequent inspections, timely  pumpouts and prohibi-
tion of garbage grinders.

--new septic tanks.

--holding tanks and "honey wagons."
—various means
leaching fields
facilities.
of upgrading septic tanks,  including  mounds,  alternate
and pressure sewers plus ponds or other small  treatment
--other systems to serve individual households or a cluster of households.
Such systems include, for example, wastewater separation, water conservation
and recycle systems where feasible.
-------
          The facility plan, where applicable, must examine alternatives
     such as limited sewer service for a portion of a community.   For
     example, septic systems work very well  in many small  towns except
     in one isolated area such as a business district where open  space
     for adequate on-site disposal is not available.

          The collection system shall not afford capacity  for new habitations
     or other establishments to be located on environmentally sensitive
     lands such as wetlands, floodplains or prime agricultural  lands.
     Moreover, the proposed collection system must conform with approved
     208 plans and air quality plans, Executive Orders on  Wetlands and
     Floodplains, and Agency policy on wetlands.

     C. Public disclosure of costs

          All projects, including collection systems, on which  public
     hearings were held after January 2, 1977, must comply fully  with
     the requirements of Program Requirements Memorandum 76-3 prior to
     approval.

          Agency policy is to ensure public disclosure of  the costs of
     any collection system projects where a public hearing was  held on
     or before January 2, 1977.  Such disclosures shall take the  form of
     a prominently published notice in a local newspaper,  and the cost
     is grant eligible.

          The notice shall include the estimated monthly charge for
     operation and maintenance, the estimated monthly debt service
     charge, the estimated connection charge and the  total monthly
     charge to a typical residential customer for the new  collection
     system being funded and any other associated wastewater facilities
     required.  Such associated facilities would include new treatment
     capacity needed to handle the flows from the new collection  system.

          The charges may only be rough estimates, and may be presented
     as a range of possible costs when major unknowns exist, such as
     whether or not substantial parts of the project  are grant  eligible.

 IV. Implementation

     The States are to be advised of the issuance of  this  amended policy
at once.  All pending and future grant applications for collection
system projects or projects containing collection systems  are to  be
reviewed for compliance with this policy.
-------
V. References

   A. Sections 201, 211, 212, P.L.  92-500 and Section 36 of P.L.  95-
   217.

   B. 40 CFR SS35.905-19, 925-7, 925-13,  Appendix B.

   C. PRM 76-3, "Presentation of Local  Government Costs of Wastewater
      Treatment Works in Facility Plans," August 16,  1976.

   D. Memorandum to Regional  Administrators from Russell E. Train,
      "Encouraging Less Costly Wastewater Facilities  for Small
      Communities," December  30, 1976.
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



                            MAR  1 7 1978
                                             Construction  Grants
                                             Program Requirements  Memorandum
                                             PRM No.  78-10
SUBJECT:  Infiltration/Inflow Program Guidance

FROM:     John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator ^&r**\  '    t^&*4(
          for Water Program Operations  (WH-546)

TO:       Regional  Administrators (I-X)
          ATTN:  Water Division Directors
Purpose

     This program requirements memorandum provides  an  optional  procedure
for implementing the requirements of the infiltration/inflow  (I/I)
program.  This optional  procedure is intended  to  substantially  reduce
the seasonal  dependency  of the I/I work, which is commonly  done during
high groundwater conditions; simplify the review  of I/I  reports;  expedite
project completion;  and  increase the reliability  of results used  in
determining project  size and design.  Specifically, the  memorandum
provides:

     1.  a technique for rapidly screening out non-excessive  I/I  projects;

     2.  a simplified scope of work for I/I investigations; and

     3.  a mechanism for performing sewer testing and  repairing concurrently.
-------
                              -2-


Discussion

     In accordance with Section 201(g)(3)  of the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 40 CFR  §35.927 of the construction grant
regulations requires that the grant applicant determine whether excessive
I/I exists.  A cost-effectiveness analysis is required by §35.927-l(b)
for determining the possible existence  of  excessive I/I.   If the analysis
demonstrates the possible existence of  excessive I/I, a sewer system
evaluation survey (SSES) must be completed before proceeding with
project design (see i§35.927-l(c) and 35.927-1).  Details of this
program are described in EPA's "Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation and
rehabilitation."

     Increasing evidence from field experience to date strongly indicates
that certain modifications to the I/I program in the following areas
would be of benefit:

     1.   The scope of work in the investigative phase is too complex
          and over-emphasized.  As a result, I/I studies  have been
          excessively costly and time consuming, while the actual
          rehabilitation has often been delayed for years.

     2.   The regulatory review process is time consuming and extremely
          difficult because of the subjective nature of the cost-
          effectiveness study in the I/I analysis and difficulty in
          accurately determining the scope of work in the sewer system
          evaluation survey (SSES).   As a  result, sewer systems having
          excessive I/I may not be identified for repair  in some cases
          and contract costs for SSES work may be unnecessarily high in
          others.

     3.   The redundant requirement for sewer line cleaning and internal
          inspection for both SSES and  rehabilitation is  costly and can
          be alleviated by allowing sewer  grouting and minor replacement
          to be performed under a Step  1 grant.

     4.   Elimination of I/I sources based on visual inspection may not
          be effective.  More specifically, the present approach may
          simply cause that portion of  I/I supposedly eliminated to
          migrate to other weak joints  or  create new I/I  sources which
          were not leaking initially.  In  fact, this phenomenon has been
          verified by case study reports and field observations.  To
          address this concern more comprehensively, the  effectiveness
          of the I/I program will be evaluated through a  proposed
          contract which is presently being processed.
-------
                                   -3-

     In 1977, a Streamlining Committee comprised of representatives from
the Regions and Headquarters identified I/I as one of the subjects to
investigate.  As a result, in July, a simplified I/I procedure was
recommended by the Streamlining Committee.

     The procedure described in this memorandum will substantially
resolve the specific points discussed above.   Pending the results of
the proposed I/I study and field experience gained from the use of these
procedures, it is possible that additional  improvements to the program
will also be made in the future.

Policy

1.   The use of the procedure described in  this PRM is optional.
     However, because the procedure is simple and may result in a more
     effective I/I program, its application should be encouraged whenever
     applicable.

2.   Based on the results of an EPA contract study in 1975 and cost
     analysis data, it is reasonable to assume that a maximum infiltration
     rate of less than 1500 gallons per day per inch of pipe diameter
     per mile of the sewer pipe (gpd/in/m)  is not economical to rehabili-
     tate and therefore is non-excessive.   The 1500 gpd/in/m criterion
     is not to be used as an infiltration  allowance in the hydraulic
     design of a new sewer system.

3.   When the infiltration rate is above 1500 gpd/in/m, a cost-effectiveness
     analysis is required to determine if  further investigation of the
     problem is warranted.

4.   For purposes of the I/I analysis, the  1500 gpd/in/m criterion
     should be applied to the infiltration  rate determined for the
     entire sewer system.  Accordingly, flow charts for the treatment
     plants may be used as a basis for this I/I determination.  For
     large systems, especially where flow  charts at the pump stations
     are available or where specific problem areas are known or suspected
     by the grantee, a subsystem analysis  on those particular areas is
     generally warranted.

5.   The grantee may perform minor sewer rehabilitation (excluding sewer
     separation) under the Step 1 grant process subject to State and EPA
     approval.  An amendment to the Step 1  grant will be required for EPA
     participation in the cost of minor sewer rehabilitation.  The extent
     of the minor rehabilitation which may  be performed under this pro-
     vision is subject to Regional judgement and must be consistent with
     the overall scope of the Step 1 grant.  Minor rehabilitation may
     include, for example, elimination of  excessive infiltration by means
     of concurrent pressure testing and grouting or correction of a limited
     number of obviously excessive inflow  sources by replacing manhole covers,
     raising the grade of the manhole access, disconnecting cross connections,
     structural repairs or replacement of  a limited number of sewer sections.
     However, rehabilitation work which should be a part of the grantee's
-------
                              -4-

     normal  operation and maintenance responsibilities  should  not  be
     included within the scope of  a treatment works  project.  (See  the
     analogous requirement of §35.927-3(a).)

6.   Any rehabilitation work to be performed  under a Step  1  grant  which
     is not accomplished through force account work  in  accordance  with
     §30.645, must be procured through a competitive bidding process  in
     compliance with all of the applicable requirements of §s35.938
     through 35.938-9 and 35.939 of the Construction Grants  Regulations
     (Subpart E of Part 35), the statutory requirements referenced in
     is30.415 through 30.415-4 and other applicable  provisions of  the
     General Grant Regulations (Part 30).   In cases  where  the  concurrent
     sewer testing and sealing technique is  used,  the bidding  package
     should include sewer line cleaning, pressure  testing  of sewer
     joints, and grouting.

7.   A positive indication of an active sewer maintenance  program  will
     be required before the Step 3 grant is  awarded. The  program  should
     be prepared after the sewer rehabilitation is completed and should
     provide a schedule for eliminating any  remaining excessive I/I
     including those inflow sources originating from service lines which
     are cost effective to eliminate.

8.   The provisions of this memorandum are not applicable  to inflow and
     overflows from combined sewers; issues  related  to  inflow and  combined
     sewer overflows are addressed separately in PRM #75-34 (PGM #61).

Implementation

     The conditions described in this PRM and the  attachment are applicable
for any appropriate Step 1 projects.

Attachments
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    Pv                      WASHINGTON, D C.  20460

                                                   11 MAY 1970


                                             Construction Grants
                                             Program Requirements Memorandum
                                             PRM No.  78-11
SUBJECT:

FROM:


TO:
          Toxicity of Chemical Grouts for Sewer Rehabilitation

          John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator  O
          for Water Program Operations  (WH-b46)          /

          Regional Administrators
          Regions  I thru X
Purpose

     This Program Requirements Memorandum provides an alert on the
potential health hazards associated with the field application of a
major chemical  grout used in correcting sewer infiltration.   The
grouting material is AM-y manufactured by American Cyanamid.  Your
immediate action is requested in distributing this memorandum and the
attachment to all Construction Grant Program grantees.

Discussion

     In applying the AM-9 grout, a catalyst containing  dimethyl  amino
propionitrile (DMAPN) is used.  On April 7, 1978,  OSHA  issued a  health
hazard alert concerning DMAPN.  It stated, "There  is no current  permissible
exposure limit.   It is unknown at the present time if there is any safe
limit for numan  exposure to ESN (a trademark name  for DMAPfJ).  The use
of the material  has been discontinued in plants in both Maryland and
Massachusetts.    Accordingly, based on serious and immediate  adverse
human health effects already evident i_t is imperative that worker
exposure to ESN  and its components be completely avoided."

     The OSHA alert was based on operations involved in the manufacture
of polyurethane  foam.  However, on the basis of this alert,  the  Washington
Metropolitan Transit Authority recently requested  that  all future use of
this product (DMAPN) be stopped immediately and the product be removed
from all of its  subway construction sites.  DMAPN  had previously been
used in grouting operations in subway tunnels.
-------
Action
     Uistribute this memorandum and the attached OSHA alert to the State
     Agencies in your region and to all grantees who are or may potentially
     be using the above chemical grouts in sewer rehabilitation projects.

     There are already efforts underway to continue grouting "/ith AM-9
     using a different catalyst agent.   However, we understand that the
     production of AM-y will be discontinued as  of July 31, 1978.   In
     view of this and the health related concerns discussed above,
     please assess the impact of these  events on the infiltration/inflow
     program as it relates to the overall  management of the Construction
     Grant Program.  You will be notified  as soon as additional information
     becomes available.  Please keep me advised  of your findings and
     conclusions.
-------
     OSHA HEALTH HAZARD ALERT:  NIAX Catalyst ESN

     It has come to OSHA's attention that your firm has used and may
still be using NIAX catalyst ESN (registered TM, Union Carbide).  ESN is
composed of two chemicals: (1) dimethyl ami no propionitrile, and (2)
BIS-2, dimethyl amino ethyl ether.   The material is chiefly used as a
catalyst in certain polyurethane foam production operations.

     There have been documented reports on serious adverse health
effects among male and female employees exposed to ESN in  plants in both
Maryland and Massachusetts.  The most striking symptoms uniformly reported
by afflicted workers are those of urinary dysfunction.  In one Maryland
plant 69 of 101 workers questioned  complained of difficulty starting
urination, pain and burning on voiding, incomplete emptying of the
bladder, slowness in expelling urine, and other urinary problems.  There
have also been employee reports of  impotence and sexual difficulties.  A
few individuals have received urological surgery.  There is evidence
that for a smaller number of employees toxic effects of ESN include
damage to the nervous system (peripheral neuropathy) with  symptoms of
muscle weakness, loss of balance and coordination, numbness, tingling,
and loss of feelings.  ESN exposure may also cause liver dysfunction.

     Employees have reported symptoms of toxic effects after as few as
three of ESN exposure.  In addition to these immediate urinary and
neurological effects, exposure to ESN can lead to serious  and permanent
health damage to the afflicted worker.

     The material has moderate to severe toxicity by the skin, inhalation,
and oral routes of administration in acute animal studies.   OSHA has not
found any animal toxicology data on long-term or chronic effects of ESN
exposure.

     There is no current permissible exposure limit.  It is unknown at
the present time if there is any safe limit for human exposure to ESN.
The use of the material has been discontinued in plants in both Maryland
and Massachusetts.   Accordingly, based on the serious and  immediate
adverse human health effects already evident, it is imperative that
worker exposure to  ESN and its components be completely avoided.   It is
also essential that employers take  the following actions regarding ESN:

     1)   Inform all employees of the possible adverse health effects of
          exposure.

     2)   Provide all employees with a copy of this telegram.

     3)   Advise all employees with symptoms described in  this notice to
          see a physician and show  him/her this message.   The physician
          should be  made aware that the urological  complaints  have been
          mistaken  for non-occupationally caused prostatic  or bladder
          disease.
-------
     4)   Urge all  employees with symptoms  to  report them to OSHA,  to
          their bargaining agent if there is one,  and to the corporate
          medical  department if any.

     5)   Advise the corporate medical  department  or other designated
          physician to inform OSHA promptly of all  employee reports of
          symptoms  described above.

     Those involved should contact the  OSHA regional administrator  to
convey all employee reports of symptoms.   A complete list of (JSHA regional
administrators is  attached as an appendix to this  document.   Physicians
and others seeking  more technical or medical information on health
effects of ESN should call the OSHA regional administrator for referral.
Further, since serious physical harm to employees  has taken place after
short periods of exposure to ESN, OSHA  compliance  officers have been
directed to institute imminent danger proceedings  where appropriate
measures have not  been taken to eliminate this exposure.

     Workers exposed to the individual  components  of ESN, alone or  in
combination with other chemical compounds,  should  be investigated for
similar adverse health effects, with particular reference to urinary
tract symptoms.


Eula Bingham
Assistant Secretary for Occupational
  Safety and Health
-------
                        OSHA Regional  Administrators
 1.  Region I - Gilbert Saulter   (CT, ME, MA, RI, VT)
                617-223-5535

 2.  Region II - Alfred Barden    (NJ, NY, PR, VI)
                 212-399-5941

 3.  Region III - David Rhone     (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA,  WV)
                  215-596-1206

 4.  Region IV - Allan McMillan   (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS,  NC,  SC,  TN)
                 4C4-881-2305

 5.  Region V - Berry White       (IL, IN, MI, MM, OH,  WI)
                312-353-4716

 6.  Region VI - Robert Wendell   (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
                 214-749-3473

 7.  Region VII - Vernon Strahm   (IA, KS, MO, NB)
                  316-374-5048

 8.  Region VIII - Curtis Foster  (CO, MT, ,MD, SD, UT,  WY)
                   303-837-3416

 9. Region IX - Gabrel  Gillotti   (AZ, CA, GU, HI, NV,  Am.  Sam.,  Trust
                415-556-0586       Terr., N. Mariannas)

10.  Region X - James Lake        (AK, ID, OR, WA)
                206-442-5930
-------
,52522-
?   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                        JUN
                                    HOT
                                                      OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                      HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                           CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                           Program Requirements  Memorandum
                                           PRM #78-12
SUBJECT:  Preconstruction Lag Management

FROM:     John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators

ATTN:     Water Division Directors

PURPOSE:

     The purpose of this memorandum is to establish Agency policy regarding
the management of preconstruction lags.

DISCUSSION:
     Section 35.935-9 of the current construction grant regulations  states
that, if construction of a Step 3 project is  not initiated within one year
after award, grant assistance will  be terminated.  This section also provides
that the Regional Administrator may defer such termination for not more than
six additional months, if there is  good cause for the delay in initiation of
construction.

     Because of a continuing history of failure by grantees to initiate
construction on their projects within a reasonable period of time following
award of the Step 3 grant, a program for the  management of these lags must
be decisive so as to minimize the number and  value of projects in
preconstruction over an extended period.  Measures, such as anticipating
problems early, having a plan of control, taking the lead in overcoming
delays, and emphasizing to the grantee that his grant may be terminated or
annulled and an enforcement action  initiated  must be included in such a
program.
-------
     The proposed technical  amendments published  in the  FEDERAL REGISTER
on June 2, 1978, has revised Section 35.935-9 to  read as follows:


^35.935-9  Project initiation and completion.

     (a)  The grantee agrees to expeditiously initiate and complete the
Step 1, 2 or 3 project, or cause it to be constructed and completed, in
accordance with the grant agreement and application, including any
project schedule, approved by the Regional  Administrator.  Failure of
the grantee to promptly initiate Step 1, 2  or 3 project  construction may
result in annulment or termination of the grant.

     (b)  No date reflected in the grant agreement, or in the project
completion schedule, or extension of any such date, shall be deemed to
modify any compliance date established in an NPDES permit.  It is  the
grantee's obligation to request any required modification of applicable
permit terms or other enforceable requirements that may be affected by
an extension.

     (c)  The invitation for bids for Step  3 project work is expected to
be issued promptly after grant award.  Generally this action should occur
within 90 to 120 days after award unless compliance with State or  local
laws requires a longer period of time.  The Regional Administrator shall
annul or terminate the grant if initiation  of Step 3 construction, including
all significant elements of project work, has not occurred within  12 months
of the award of Step 3 grant assistance (or approval of plans and  specifica-
tions, in the case of a Step 2+3 grant).  However, the Regional Administrator
may defer (in writing) the annulment or termination for not more than 6
additional months if:

          (1)  The grantee has applied for and justified the extension in
writing to the Regional Administrator;

          (2)  The grantee has given written notice of the request for
extension to the NPDES permit authority,

          (3)  The Regional Administrator determines that there is good
cause for the delay in initiation of project construction; and

          (4)  The State agency concurs in the extension.

POLICY:

     Beginning September 1, 1978, to obtain a deviation  from 40 CFR 35.935-9,
for deferment beyond 18 months, it  shall be  Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) policy that the  grantee must  document that the delays are due to
circumstances beyond his control and provide certification that construction
will be  initiated by the deferment  date in the deviation request.   Such dates
must be within a brief and strictly  limited period of time.
-------
     No determination should be made by the Regional Administrator to extend
the required date for initiation of construction of a project, or any segment,
until prior approval has been obtained from the State agency.   If an
extension of time is not approved by either EPA or the State,  the EPA
Regional Office should take immediate action to terminate or annul the
grant.  The funds can then be utilized for other projects within the
State, consistent with the State project priority system.

IMPLEMENTATION:
     Regional Office personnel shall coordinate all actions with the
Enforcement Division and Permits Branch in implementing the above policy
as follows:

     1.  Immediately review the current construction lag report for all
         projects with a construction lag in excess of 12 months without
         an approved extension and in excess of 18 months without a granted
         deviation.  Select projects for termination or annulment.   For those
         projects which the Regional Administrator has assured himself will
         be under construction in a reasonable amount of time, an official
         extension may be granted or deviation requested, as appropriate.
         Other projects should be considered for termination or annulment
         and enforcement action.

     2.  Immediately review all projects which have not gone to construction
         by the end of six months after Step 3 grant award and classify them
         as being in "Delayed Status."  Immediately relay this information
         to the Director, Enforcement Division.

     3.  Immediately review all projects which have not gone to construction
         within 120 days of Step 3 grant award and determine if invitations
         for bids have been published.  Classify those projects which have
         not been advertised as being in "Delayed Status" and relay this
         information to the Director, Enforcement Division.

     4.  Continually maintain the Preconstruction Lag Report in detail.
         Instructions for maintaining the Preconstruction Lag Report are
         contained in References B & C below.

     5.  Continually monitor all projects on the Preconstruction Lag Report
         to spot potential problem projects.

     6.  At the time that projects are classified as being in "Delayed Status,"
         require detailed preconstruction schedules from grantees and aggres-
         sively pursue the implementation of these schedules.  Monthly, Area
         Program Managers in Headquarters will determine the status of all
         "Delayed Status" projects, either by telephone or by visits to the
         Regional Offices.  Area Program Managers will also analyze the
         Preconstruction Lag Report and discuss problem aspects with the
         Regions.
-------
               7.   In  the  seventh month  after  Step  3  grant award,  advise the grantee
                    that  a  very  real  potential  exists,  both for the termination or
                    annulment  of his  project at the  end of one year and for possible
                    enforcement  action.   Advise the  grantee to review his alternative
                    approaches for solving  the  problem which is delaying construction.
                    For projects delayed  by circumstances  under the grantee's control,
                    advise  the regional  Enforcement  Division of the situation, including
                    a recommendation  for  action from the Water Division.

               8.   Between the  seventh  and twelfth  month, determine if "Delayed Status"
                    projects can be brought to  construction.  If construction cannot
                    be  started before the end of the twelfth month  and, if it is
                    reasonably assured that construction can be started within a six
                    month extension period, obtain from the grantee the documentation
                    required by  the above policy.

               9.   At  the  end of the twelfth month, terminate or annul "Delayed Status"
                    grants  in  accordance  with the above policy if documentation does not
                    justify extension.  Refer grantee to the Enforcement Division for
                    more  extensive enforcement  action.
           REFERENCES
                A.   40 CFR 35.935-9,  Project Completion.

                B.   Memorandum to Regional  Administrators from John T. Rhett,
                    "Construction Grants Projects Not Yet Under Construction,"
                    November 5, 1976.

                C.   Memorandum to Water Division Directors from John T. Rhett,
                    "Preconstruction  Status Report," May 25, 1977.

                D.   POM 77-12, "Management of Preconstruction Phase of Step 3
                    Grants," June 21, 1977.
6U.S. Government Printing Office: 1978-777-066/1124 Regions
-------
  1
   I   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                            JUN  29 1978
                                                         OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                        HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                             Construction Grants
                                             Program Requirements Memorandum
                                             PRM # 78 - 13
SUBJECT:  Interim Priority List Guidance for the Development and
          Management of FY 1979 State Priority Lists

FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH 546)

TO:       Regional Administrators

PURPOSE

     This memorandum sets forth interim priority list policy for the
development and management of FY 1979 State project priority lists  for
EPA's construction grants program.   This interim policy allows  for  the
phase-in of the recently published  interim Title II regulations.  Final
priority list policy concerning priority criteria and the development
and management of FY 1980 and subsequent lists is currently being developed
and should be issued by the beginning of FY 1979.

DISCUSSION

     The recently enacted Clean Water Act and the interim Title II
regulations make it necessary to revise many of  the procedures  for  the
development and management of State project priority lists set  forth in
Program Requirements Memorandum #77-7.  Immediate changes must  be made
to meet enforceable requirements, and provide an interface between  the
priority list and the Needs Survey.  Revisions to the systems used  to
rate and rank projects will be deferred during development of the FY 1979
list to minimize the impact on the  State construction grants program.
In most cases the FY 1979 changes are not expected to significantly
alter currently approved priority systems.  The  Regions should  insure
that the FY 79 priority list review process moves expeditiously and that
    disruptions in the program be kept to a minimum.
-------
POLICY
     1.   Submission and review  of  priority  lists.  A class deviation
     has been granted from 40 CFR  35.562  and  35.563 for FY 79 setting
     June 15, 1978, as the date for  submission of  the preliminary list,
     and August 15, 1978,  for the  final list. Also, a class deviation
     has been granted from 40 CFR  35.915(a)(l)(iv) and 35.915(c)(2)
     waiving portions of the information  requirements of the new regul-
     ation and restriction of consideration of geographical region as a
     priority rating criteria during FY '79.  No priority list is to be
     accepted as final by the Region until  all remaining required and
     available information has  been  received  for each project and the
     public participation requirements have been met. Upon receipt of
     the draft list the Region  should immediately  enter the information
     into the Regional Construction  Grants  Management Information System
     (RCGMIS) for subsequent review  and analysis.  The Regional Administrator
     will review the final State project  priority  list within 30 days of
     submission to ensure compliance with the approved State priority
     system and this policy memorandum.   All  questionable projects
     (relating to eligibility and  enforceable requirements) must be
     identified during this 30  day period.  The final list is to be
     generated from RCGMIS and  the list in  RCGMIS  will be considered as
     the official list for funding and management  purposes.

     2.    Definitions:

          o    State project priority list  -  an ordered listing of
               projects for which  Federal assistance is expected during
               the five-year planning period  starting with the beginning
               of the next fiscal  year based  on and drawn from the Needs
               Survey inventory.

          o    Fundable list -  that  portion of the State project
               priority list which contains projects scheduled for award
               during the first year of the five-year planning period,
               not to exceed the total funds  expected to be available
               during the year  less  all applicable reserves.  Note that
               this definition  of  the fundable list is changed from that
               set forth in PRM #77-7.  The fundable portion of the list
               no longer relates only to  the  amount of available funds
               but rather to the first year (fundable year) of the five-
               year list.  It  is conceivable  that  the fundable list will
               not contain enough  projects  to use  all available funds
               because the allotment period of some of the currently
               available funds  extends well beyond the fundable year.
-------
          Extended list - that portion of the State  project
          priority list containing all projects  outside  the  fund-
          able list that may,  under anticipated  allotment  levels,
          receive funding during the five-year planning  period.
          For FY 1979 planning, this list is  to  include  the  fol-
          lowing projects as a minimum:
               All  future Step 3 projects  that  will  be
               generated from currently active  Step  2 projects
               and  Step 2 projects  that are included on  the
               fundable list.

               All  future Step 2 and Step  3 projects that will
               be generated from completed or currently  active
               Step 1  projects and  Step 1  projects that  are
               included on the fundable list.

               All  Step 1 projects  anticipated  to be funded
               during  the first two years  of the five-year
               planning period (and subsequent  Step  2 and Step  3
               projects that may be funded during the five-year
               planning period where the timing and  scope is
               apparent).

3.   Funding Assumptions.  For the  purposes of  developing the
     FY 1979 State  project priority list it should be assumed that
     $4.5 billion will  be appropriated for each of the next five
     fiscal  years,  starting in FY 1979, and such funds will be
     available on the  first day of  the fiscal year.   It  should
     further be assumed for planning purposes that these funds  will
     be allotted as set forth in Attachment I.

4.   Required priority list information.   Unless otherwise noted
     or excepted for FY 1979 the following information is required
     for all projects  on the State  project priority  list, both
     fundable and extended portions.  The  GICS  transaction number
     is included in parentheses and the Region  should refer to  the
     GICS data element dictionary for the  precise definition of
     each element.

     o    State assigned EPA project number (TN 01,  54,  03).

     o    Legal name and address of applicant if known (TN 12,
          51, 14, 52).

     o    Short project name or description (TN 20).
-------
               4

Priority rating and rank of each  project, based on
current priority system (TN H8,  59).

Project step number (TN 87).

Relevant Meeds authority/facility number  (TN  32).  This
is the unique number assigned in  connection with  the
Needs Survey which identifies the facility and the
cognizant WWT authority. If an authority/facility number
has not been assigned,  enter "NO  NUMBER".  If multiple
facilities are applicable within a single authority,
enter the first six positions followed  by "XXX".  If
multiple authorities, then enter the word "MULTIPLE"
instead of the nine digit authority facility  number.  For
FY 79, this information is only required  for  the  fundable
list.

Parent project number (i.e., EPA project  number for
predecessor project) (TN B2).

For Step 2, 3, or 2+3 projects, code  indicating an
alternative system for small community  (TN 33).   Enter
"D" if the project is for a highly dispersed  section  of a
larger community or "R" if the project  is for a rural
community with a population of 3,500  or less. For FY '79
this information is only required for projects on the
fundable list. It does not apply for  States in which  the
reserve is not required and has not been  voluntarily
established.

For Step 2, 3, or 2+3 projects, that  amount  (if any)  of
the eligible cost to apply separately to  alternative
techniques and innovative processes (TN Y7, Y8).  These
amounts should not be increased to the  full  eligible  cost
even if the project meets the 50% criterion set forth in
40 CFR 35.908(b)(2).  For FY '79, this  information is
required only for the projects on the fundable list.
This information is not required on the draft or  final
priority lists submitted in accordance  with  the August  15
deadline.  This information is necessary, however, to
determine utilization of the I/A reserve  and  must be
submitted as a supplement to the priority list no later
than December 31, 1978.

Date project is expected to be certified  by  State to  EPA
for funding (TN A5).  This date defines whether or not
the project is on the fundable or extended  portion of the
priority list.
-------
For Step 3 or 2+3 projects, the total  eligible cost
subdivided by Needs Categories (TN YO,  Yl,  Y2, Y3,  Y4,
Y5, Y6).  For FY 79, the State may elect to aggregate
into a single lump sum the costs of Categories Illb
(Major Sewer System Rehabilitation), IVa (New Collector
Sewers and Appurtances), IVb (New Interceptors and
Appurtances), and V (Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows)
If this option is chosen, this aggregate cost should be
entered in the space on the attached format for Category
Illb and should be marked with an asterisk  (*).   No
entries need be made for any of the other categories
(including I, II, and Ilia).  Entries  may be made in all
applicable categories, however, at the option of the
State and Region.  This information is  only required for
projects on the fundable list.

Total eligible cost of the project (TN  29).   This infor-
mation is required for all projects on  the  State project
priority list.

Estimated EPA assistance (TN H7).   This estimated grant
amount should include any potential grant amount from the
reserve for innovative and alternative  technology.
Therefore this grant amount may be anywhere between 75% -
85%,  depending on the portion of the  project eligible
for increased funding.

Enforceable requirement to be satisfied by  this  project,
including (as appropriate) the relevant NPDES number.
The enforceable requirements must fall  into one of  the
following categories:

     A -- Project satisfies the conditions  or limitations
          of a 402 or 404 permit which, if  violated,
          could result in the issuance  of a compliance
          order or initiation of a civil  or criminal
          action under Section 309 of  the Clean Water
          Act.  (Include permit number(s)).
-------
               B  --  Permit  has  not  been issued but project satisfies
                    a  condition or  limitation which would be
                    included  in the permit when issued.

               C  —  Permit  is not applicable but project satisfies
                    a  requirement anticipated to be necessary to
                    meet applicable criteria for best practicable
                    waste treatment technology (BPWTT).

               D  --  Project does not meet an enforceable require-
                    ment of the Act.

5.   Project Bypass.   Although  readiness for funding may not be
     used as a priority criterion for  rating or ranking projects,
     the ability  to  bypass  projects not yet ready to proceed
     according to schedule  is an integral part of priority list
     management.   Projects  certified by the State and agreed to by
     the Regions  as  not ready for funding before the end of the
     fundable year may be bypassed  in  favor of the next highest
     ranked priority projects as long  as the approved priority
     system has a procedure to  bypass  and reinstate the bypassed
     projects (under specific conditions), and makes allowance for
     the public participation provisions.  If no formal bypass
     procedure exists  in the  current priority system, an interim
     procedure for FY  79 must be developed by the State and approved
     by the Region.   Projects that  are bypassed retain their relative
     priority rating for consideration on future fundable lists.
     Projects bypassed will be  replaced by the highest ranking
     priority projects on the extended list that are ready to
     proceed. Project applicants that  are bypassed because they are
     not ready to proceed must  be notified and the State must
     certify to EPA  that these  projects will not be ready during
     the fundable period.  Projects that become part of the fundable
     list must have  met all public  participation requirements.

6.   Priority Systems.  Because of  the advanced state of development
     of some State priority lists and  the relatively short period
     of time remaining before the draft lists must be submitted to
     EPA, any modification  necessary to currently approved priority
     systems should  be accomplished through a temporary administrative
     agreement between the  State and the Region.  The Regions
     should attempt  to minimize any program disruptions that might
     be caused by the modification(s)  and assure that these agreements
     are negotiated  expeditiously.   For FY '79 only, States may
     continue to consider geographic region within the State in
     developing the  priority  list,  provided this criteria is
     already part of their  currently approved priority system. In
     FY 80, the State may not consider geographic region as part of
     their priority  system.
-------
7,   Public Participation.   FY 79 public hearings,  if any,  held
     for priority system revision may be conducted  jointly  with  the
     hearing for the FY 79  priority list. No  project may  be funded
     unless it has met the  public participation requirements.

8.   Priority List/Meeds Survey Relationship.   The  State  project
     priority list should be derived from and be consistent with
     the State Meeds Inventory prepared in accordance with  Section
     516(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Water Act. The "Relevant Needs
     Authority/Facility Number" described above provides  the direct
     linkage between the priority list and the Needs Survey.

9.   Priority List Update.   Because of the new definition of the
     fundable list, the target certification  dates  and estimated
     grant amount for projects on the fundable and  extended lists
     must be kept current at all  times.  At a minimum, a  complete
     review of the priority list, including the extended  portion,
     should be performed on a quarterly basis.  Any changes to the
     list should be immediately entered into  RCGMIS.  Regions
     should assure that all bypass provisions and public  partici-
     pation requirements have been met whenever changes are made to
     the priority lists.

10.  25% Provision for Projects in Categories Illb  (Sewer System
     Replacement or Major Rehabilitation), IVa (New Collectors and
     Appurtenances), IVb (New Interceptors and Appurtenances), and
     V (Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows).  All  projects or
     parts of projects on the fundable priority list including
     these categories will  be reviewed by the Regional Administrator
     to determine if they meet enforceable requirements of  the Act.
     Projects which meet the enforceable requirements  will  be
     eligible for funding.   Projects in these categories  that do
     not meet enforceable requirements will be further examined  in
     the order of the lowest ranked project first.   This  review
     process will continue  until  the aggregate of projects  in these
     categories that do not meet the enforceable requirements of
     the Act, but are deemed necessary for pollution control, total
     not more than 25 percent of the allotment for  each State.

11.  Management of Priority List Reserves that are  Subject  to
     Reallotment if not used for their intended purpose.  Regions
     should assure that sufficient projects appear  on the fundable
     list to fully utilize  the reserve for innovative and alternative
     technology grant increases and the reserve for alternative
     systems for small communities before these funds  are lost to
     reallotment.  To accomplish this objective 40  CFR 35.915(a)(l)
     (iii) states that higher priority may be granted to  those Step
     2 and combined Step 2+3 projects utilizing processes and
     techniques meeting the innovative and alternative guidelines.
     Size of community (according to 40 CFR 35.915-l(e))  may be
     used to establish a higher priority for  projects  which can  be
     funded to preclude any potential loss of the reserved  funds.
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                            OCT 2 3 1978
                                             Construction Grants
                                             Program Requirements Memorandum
                                             PRM No. 79-1
Subject:  Safety Requirements for the Design and Operation
          of Chlorination Facilities Using Gaseous Chlorine

From:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator   CL& A«vt 'T  f
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)           /

To:       Regional Administrators (I-X)
          Attn:  Water Division Directors

Purpose:

     This memorandum establishes the policy pertaining to safety require-
ments for the design and operation of chlorination facilities utilizing
gaseous chlorine.

     While many engineering considerations and operational practices
with regard to chlorine handling are site specific, a number of significant
design specifications and operational procedures should be required as
minimum acceptable practice.  There are numerous publications that
provide detailed information pertaining to this subject, including those
listed in Attachment B.  This memorandum provides guidelines and general
principles to be used in the design and operation of chlorination
facilities using gaseous chlorine.

Discussion:

     Gaseous chlorine refers to chlorine purchased in its elemental form,
occurring in the gaseous or liquid state.  It is supplied commercially
in pressurized containers sized to contain either 100 pounds, 150 pounds
or 2,000 pounds of chlorine. In addition, chlorine can be purchased in
single unit and multi-unit railroad tank cars, as well as tank trucks.
-------
     Chlorine is a respiratory irritant,  and under conditions  of sufficient
concentration and exposure, can cause death by suffocation.  Chlorine,
especially when combined with even small  amounts  of water,  is  highly
corrosive, and can cause severe burns when brought into contact with
skin and eyes.  Unfortunately, the toxic  and corrosive effects of
chlorine were recently demonstrated by the two publicized railroad tank
car derailments and their subsequent after effects.

     The on-going construction grants program will continue to generate
significant construction of wastewater treatment  facilities throughout
the country.  Chiorination continues to represent the most commonly used
method of disinfection for sewage, and consequently many new treatment
facilities will include provisions for chlorinating treated effluent
prior to discharge. As a result, a major  part of  EPA's overall responsibility
is ensuring that safe chlorination practices are  implemented.

     EPA policy is designed to ensure that:

     1.   Chlorination systems are designed to prevent chlorine leaks
and to minimize operator and local resident exposure should leaks occur.

     2.   Chlorine leaks that do occur are handled safely, quickly, and
with minimal environmental exposure.

Policy:

     Attachment A is guidance for the design and  operation of safe
chlorination facilities.  It is intended  that in  reviewing plans and
specifications and operation and maintenance manuals for those projects
incorporating chlorination processes, Sections I  and II of Attachment  A
be used as a technical guide and basis for minimum adequacy in safety
considerations.  The information contained in the guidance was developed
to serve as part of the overall criteria  applicable to the design and
operation of such facilities.  While it is believed that complying with
the guidance will substantially reduce chlorine hazards which can be
potentially dangerous to plant personnel  and nearby residents, it is
recommended that the guidance in this PRM be used to supplement other
applicable information on chlorination facilities.

Implementation:

     The measures specified in this memorandum are required for all
projects that have not yet received Step  3 grants by the date of this
memorandum.  In addition, projects that have already received Step 3
grants should incorporate the sections under operation and maintenance
in the O&M manual.  Where practical, current Step 3 projects should be
encouraged to make revisions to their designs to  comply with the measures
specified herein.

Attachments
-------
                                                       ATTACHMENT A
              Procedure for the Safety in the Design and
                   Operation of Chlorine Facilities


     This guidance contains a detailed procedure which represents good
engineering practices for the safety in the design and operation of
chlorination facilities.  Because it is not the intent of the guidance
to modify or replace any appropriate safety requirements and regulations
published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
it is recommended that the guidance be used to supplement the OSHA and
any other appropriate safety requirements.

I.   Design of Gaseous Chlorine Facilities

     A.   If gas chlorination equipment and chlorine cylinders are to be
installed or stored in a building used for other purposes, a gas-tight
partition should separate the chlorination room from any other portion
of the building.  Doors to this room should open only to the outside of
the building, and should be equipped with panic hardware.  Such rooms
should be at ground level, and should permit easy access to all equipment;
the chlorine storage area(s) should be separated from the chlorine feed
area(s).

     B.   A clear glass, gas-tight window should be installed in an
exterior door or interior wall of the chlorination room to permit the
chlorinator(s) to be viewed without entering the room.

     C.   Chlorination rooms should be equipped with heating and ventilating
equipment designed to maintain the room(s) containing the chlorine
containers at approximately 18-21°C (65-70°F) and the room(s) containing
the chlorinator feed equipment at a temperature of 5-10°F higher.

     D.   Containers (except insulated rail or cargo tanks) should be
shielded from direct'sunlight or from overheating above 60°C (140°F)
any source, either while in storage or in use.  Pairs of level  rails or
properly designed cradles should be provided for storing one ton cylinders.

     E.   Forced mechanical ventilation should be included that will
provide a complete air change at least every 1-4 minutes.  Because
chlorine gas is heavier than air, location of air inlets and outlets
should be carefully considered to ensure that the entire room will  be
thoroughly ventilated.   For example, in the exhaust ventilation system,
the exhaust outlet should be located near the floor, with the discharge
being positioned outside of the building at a point where it will  not
contaminate the air inlet to any buildings or inhabited areas.   The
fresh air inlet should be located at the opposite end of the room from
the exhaust outlet, to facilitate complete air replacement.
-------
     F.   Exhaust equipment should be automatically  activated  by  external
light switches.   That is, an operator should be  able to  turn the  lights
on outside of the chlorination room and thereby  activate the ventilation
system prior to  entering the enclosed area.   Other automatic systems,
including door-activated mechanisms, should  also be  considered.

     G.   Emergency showers and eye baths should be  located near,  but
external to, the chlorination facilities.

     H.   For facilities having a design hydraulic capacity of five
million gallons  per day or more, an automatic chlorine detection  system
should be included as part of the chlorination facility.  The  detection
system should sound alarms and activate flashing lights  that are  audible
and visible within the POTW.  Connection of  the  alarm system to the
local police station, POTW operator's area,  or both, is  also recommended
where practical.  Consideration of such detection and alarm systems
should also be given in the case of smaller  facilities,  where  the
potential benefits are sufficient to warrant the additional cost  and
associated increase in operational complexity.

II.  Operation and Maintenance

     The following procedures should be included in  operation  and
maintenance manuals for treatment facilities which incorporate chlorination
processes.  While the following criteria are related primarily to the
operation and maintenance of chlorination systems, they  should also  be
read in the context of their applicability to the design of treatment
plants.

     A.   Loading and Unloading of Chlorine

          1.   DOT regulations (174.560) provide that single-unit railroad
     tank cars must be unloaded on a private track.   This requirement
     applies to  all EPA supported projects.

          2.   Whenever practicable, single  and  multi-unit tank cars
     should be delivered at a deadend siding(s)  used only for  chlorine
     delivery, with insurance that the tracks are level.  The  car(s)
     should be protected by a locked derail, a closed and locked  switch,
     or preferably both.

          3.   Railway flat cars delivering  one  ton  containers should
     also be delivered on a special siding assigned  to chlorine unloading
     only.

          4.   Chains, rope slings, or magnetic  hoists should  never  be used.
     When cylinders are to be lifted, forklift trucks or hoisting equipment
     with special cradles or carriers designed for chlorine equipment  should
     be utilized.
-------
     5.   Tank barge unloading facilities should be in compliance with
the Army Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard Regulations.

B.   Handling of Chlorine Containers

     1.   One ton cylinders should be stored on properly  designed
cradles or pairs of level rails.   Chocks should be placed to prevent
the containers from rolling when  unattended.

     2.   100 and 150 pound cylinders should be secured with safety
chains in storage and during transport.

     3.   Containers should never be piled on top of one  another.

     4.   Containers should be stored in a manner that will  prevent
them from being hit by vehicles or other heavy objects.

     5.   Chlorine should not be  stored with other compressed
gases.

     6.   Empty containers should be so tagged, and should be
stored separately from full containers.

     7.   Cylinders should be used in the order in which  they are
received, to prevent valve packing from becoming dry and  developing
leaks.

     8.   Only approved tools designed for use with chlorine containers
should be used.  For example, hand trucks specifically designed for
100 and 150 pound cylinders should be used instead of rolling them
on the rim.

     9.   Chlorine cylinder emergency repair kits should  be readily
available.

C.   Leak Detection and Emergency Procedures

     1.   Each POTW should have a formal written set of emergency
procedures that includes the items discussed below, prior to startup
of the chlorination facilities.  In addition, operator's  manual
must include pre-planned procedures in the event of a catastrophic
leak or container rupture.

     2.   Self-contained positive pressure helmets, with  their own
compressed air supply and full facepiece, should be available for
emergency use.  The canister type gas mask is specifically not
recommended.  The helmets should  be located at readily accessible
points, away from the area(s) likely to be contaminated with chlorine
gas.  Spare air supply cylinders  should also be on site for use
during prolonged emergencies.
-------
     Helmets and breathing air supply tanks  should be routinely
inspected and maintained in good condition.   They should  be cleaned
after each use, and also cleaned routinely at regular intervals.
When needed, air supply tanks should be refilled at stations where
proper air compressor equipment is used to filter out oil  in a
contaminated air environment.

     Specifications for properly designed positive pressure helmets for
chlorine service can be obtained from the U.S.  Bureau of  Mines,
OSHA, or NIOSH.  In addition, potential users of these helmets, as
well as users of other emergency equipment,  should have formal
training in their use and should also be required to have regular
practice sessions.

     3.   A strong solution of aqueous ammonia (18° Baume or higher)
should be available for use in locating the  source of leaks.  Dense
white clouds of ammonium chloride are formed by the reaction of the
ammonia and chlorine, thus confirming the source of the chlorine
leak.

     4.   Repair of any chlorine leaks should be performed by at
least two people wearing self-contained air  breathing equipment.
If such repairs must be made below grade, persons entering the  area
must also wear safety harnesses which are connected to ropes extending
to a higher level where additional people are stationed to assist
in emergency rescue operations.

     5.   Piping and valves in chlorine rooms should be color coded
and properly labeled for rapid identification.

     6.   If a container is leaking chlorine, it should be turned,
if possible, so that gas instead of liquid escapes.  The  quantity
of chlorine that escapes from a gas leak is  about one-fifteenth the
amount that escapes from a liquid leak through the same size hole.

     7.   If possible, a leaking container should be moved to an
isolated spot where it will do the least harm.

     8.   Never immerse or throw a leaking chlorine container into
a body of water.  The leak will be aggravated and the container may
float when still partially full of liquid chlorine, allowing gas
evolution at the surface.

     9.   Emergency kits should be readily available for  the quick
repair of chlorine leaks.  Information on emergency kits  is available
from the Chlorine Institute, New York, NY (see Reference  1).

     10.  In the event of an emergency, technical assistance can be
obtained by calling CHEMTREC (Manufacturing  Chemists Association,
Chemical Transportation Emergency Center) at 800/424-9300.  This is
a 24-hour toll-free service.
-------
                                                          ATTACHMENT B

                              REFERENCES
1.   "Chlorine Manual," The Chlorine Institute,  Inc.  342 Madison Avenue,
     New York, NY, December, 1972.

2.   "WPCF Manual  of Practice No.  1  - Safety in  Wastewater Works,"  Water
     Pollution Control  Federation,  1975.

3.   "WPCF Manual  of Practice No.  4  - Chlorination of Wastewater,"  Water
     Pollution Control  Federation,  1976.

4.   "WPCF Manual  of Practice No.  8  - Wastewater Treatment Plant Design,"
     Water Pollution Control Federation,  1977.

5.   "Liquid Chlorine"  Technical  and Engineering Service Bulletin No.  7,
     Allied Chemical, Morristown,  NJ.

6.   "Chemical Safety Data Sheet  SD-80,  Properties and Essential  Information
     for Safe Handling  and use of Chlorine," Manufacturing Chemists
     Association,  1970.

7.   "Standards for Waste Treatment  Works, Municipal  Sewerage Facilities,"
     New York State Department of Environmental  Conservation, 1970.

8.   "Chlorine Handbook," Diamond Shamrock Chemical  Company,  1976.

9.   "Dow Chlorine Handbook," Dow Chemical U.S.A., 1975.

10.  Sax, Irving N., Dangerous^ Properties of Industrial  Materials,  Van
     Nostrand Reinhold  Company, 1975.

11.  White, George C.,  Handbook Of Chlorination, Van  Nostrand Reinhold  Company,
     1972.

12.  "Hazardous Materials Regulations of  the Department of Transportation,
     Including Specifications for Shipping Containers,"  R.M.  Grazianos  Tariff
     Publishing.

13.  "Chlorine Detector Saves a Life," Public Works,  March, 1978.

14.  "Safe Handling of  Compressed  Gases and Containers,"  Compressed  Gas
     Association,  Inc., 1974.

15.  "Supplement to Federal  Guidelines: Design,  Operation and Maintenance
     of Wastewater Treatment Facilities," Technical Bulletin  No.  D-71-1,
     U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, September,  1970.
-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

f.   .
-------
     There are a.t least two occasions  when  the  grantee may  be  obligated
to pay a royalty for the use of or for rights in  patents:

     1.   The treatment works design includes a patented  product,
apparatus, or process,  or

     2.   A patented product, apparatus or  process  may be necessary for
the proper performance  of a subagreement to a construction  grant.

Policy

     Royalties for the  use of or for rights in  patents, are allowable
costs within the limits of the principles and procedures  contained herein.

Implementation

     1.   The grantee shall report to the EPA Project Officer, with copies
for the EPA Regional Counsel, the following information,  if applicable,  for
each item of royalty in excess of $1,000 which  the  grantee will be
obligated to pay as an  actual cost:

          a.   Name and address of licensor;

          b.   Date of license agreement;

          c.   Patent Numbers;

          d.   Brief description, including any part or model
     numbers of each contract product, apparatus  or process
     which the separate royalty is payable;

          e.   Percentage or dollar rate or royalty per  unit or
     other method of determining the royalty;

          f.   Unit price of contract items;

          g.   Number of units;                      »

          h.   Total dollar amount of royalties;  and

          i.   Current license agreements.

     2.   Prior to selecting a patented product,  apparatus, or process for
the treatment works, on which an item of royalty must be  paid, the grantee
must consider:

          a.   The necessity and reasonableness of the royalty.
-------
          b.   The royalty in any cost-effective analysis and as
     an evaluation factor in any bid analysis;

          c.   The use of performance type specifications for
     competitive procurement of a royalty-free  product, apparatus
     or process; and

          d.   The use of Step 3 bid alternatives to each proposed
     patented product, apparatus, or process on which a royalty
     must be paid.

     3.   The grantee shall obtain and submit to the EPA Project Officer,
with copies for the EPA Regional Counsel, as soon as the patented product,
apparatus or process, on which a royalty must be paid, has been proposed
in the facilities plan or design, a copy of the proposed license agreement.

     4.   Royalties on a patent necessary for the proper performance of
the grant agreement or any subagreement thereto and applicable to grant
products, apparatus or processes, are allowable unless:

          a.   The Federal government has title to the patent or
     a royalty fee license with the right to sub-license the grantee;

          b.   The patent has been adjudicated  to be invalid, or has
     been administratively determined to be invalid by an Agency
     of the Federal government;

          c.   The patent or license agreement  is considered to be
     unenforceable by the grantee or an Agency  of the Federal
     government;

          d.   The patent either has expired or will expire prior to the
     incurrence, by the grantee, of any possible infringement liability.

          e.   The grantee has received from a  patent attorney, an opinion
     that the patent is either not infringed or invalid.

     5.   The grantee shall determine whether any of the circumstances  of
paragraph 4 above exist.  The grantee may also  be advised by EPA to
make a study of the validity, infringement or other aspects relating to
the enforceability of the patent.  All costs incurred by the grantee in
making the required determinations and studies  will be allowable,
provided that prior approval of the anticipated costs has been received
from the EPA Project Officer, with the advice of the EPA Patent
Counsel, Office of General Counsel.  Written reports of such determinations
and studies shall be submitted to the EPA Project Officer, with copies
for the EPA Regional Counsel.
-------
     6.    If the implementation of the facilities  plan would  obligate
the grantee to the payment of royalties for the use  of or  rights  in
patents  in excess of $5,000,  the grantee's  public  hearing,  held  in
accordance with 40 CFR 35.917-5, shall include a discussion of the
proposed or selected patented product, apparatus or  process,  and  afford
concerned commercial interests adequate opportunity  to express their
views.

     7.    Special care should be exercised  by the  grantee  in  determining
reasonableness of the royalties where they  may have  been arrived  at  as
a result of less than arm's length bargaining; e.g.:

          a.   Royalties to be paid to persons, including
     corporations, affiliated with the party requiring payments
     of such royalty or license fee;

          b.   Royalties to be paid to unaffiliated  parties,
     including corporations,  under an agreement between  the person
     requiring payment and the patent licensor which was entered
     into in contemplation that the EPA grant or grantee's contract
     would be awarded; or

          c.   Royalties to be paid under an agreement  between
     the person requiring payment and the patent licensor  which
     was entered into after the award of the grant by EPA or the
     contract by the grantee.

     8.   In any case involving a patent formerly owned  by the grantee's
contractor, the amount of royalty allowed will not exceed the cost
which would have been allowed had the contractor retained title  thereto.

     9.   The royalty shall not exceed the lowest rate  at which  the
licensor has offered or licensed a public or private entity.

     10.  When negotiating the royalty, the grantee should consider the
technical and financial risk that they must assume and  the future
commercial benefits that may accrue to the licensor as  a result  of the
grantee's utilization of the patent.

     11.  EPA payment will normally not be made on a royalty until  Step 3.
Certain exceptions  should be allowed when the use of a  patented  product,
apparatus, or process is necessary for the proper performance of the
grant agreement, or a subagreement, during Step 1  or 2.   The grantee's
license or other agreement whereby the grantee was obligated to  pay
a royalty, must be  submitted with the request for EPA payment.   If the
grantee's payment is made to a licensee, a copy of that licensee's
agreement with its  licensor must be submitted with the request
for  EPA payment.
-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                      NOV 1 5 1978
                                        CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
                                        PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                        PRM 79-3
SUBJECT:  Revision of Agency Guidance for Evaluation of Land
          Treatment Alternatives Employing Surface Application
               
-------
     Distribution of the Process Design Manual  for Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater (EPA 625/1-77-008) consolidates most of the technical
information on surface application approaches into a single reference
source.  This consolidation of technical information provides a sound
basis from which to establish more consistent and effective implementation
of Agency policy on land treatment alternatives using the slow rate,
rapid infiltration, or overland flow processes.

     In the process of coordinating with the Regions on specific projects
involving land treatment, OWPO staff has had the opportunity to review a
number of selected facility plans with respect to their handling of land
treatment alternatives.  In addition to providing information pertinent
to the specific projects being evaluated, this review has been used to
determine what, if any, changes in guidance are needed to achieve more
consistent and complete evaluation of land treatment alternatives.
Areas being considered include technical assistance and staff training
as well as revision of guidance documents.

     The results of this review to date show that land treatment technologies
have had and continue to have inadequate assessment in many instances.
In addition and for substantially more cases, detailed coverage of land
treatment has missed the mark for a variety of reasons.  Three of the
frequently encountered reasons are:  (1) overly conservative and,
consequently, costly design of slow rate (irrigation) systems, (2)
failure to consider rapid infiltration as a proven and implementable
land treatment alternative, and (3) provision for a substantially higher
and more costly level of preapplication treatment than is needed to
protect public health and ensure design performance.

     Such inadequate assessment of land treatment alternatives has led
to rejection of land treatment in cases where it appears that a thorough
assessment would identify less costly alternatives utilizing the recycling
and reclamation advantages of land treatment.  Consistent with the
revised construction grants regulations resulting from enactment of
PL 95-217, award of Step 1 grants and subsequent approval of facility
plans must ensure that the selected alternative is cost-effective and
emphasizes energy conservation and recycling of resources.  This is
important both to meet the statutory requirements of the law and to
provide the maximum pollution control benefits attainable with the funds
allocated to the Construction Grants Program.

     The Administrator's memorandum of October 3, 1977, emphasizes that
the Agency grants program will include thorough consideration of land
treatment as compared to conventional treatment and discharge to surface waters.

     This program requirements memorandum is designed to consolidate the
existing base of guidance into a uniform but still flexible set of
guidelines for slow rate, rapid infiltration, and overland flow systems.
This should improve our capability to effectively and consistently
implement the Agency policy on recycling and reclamation through land
treatment alternatives.
-------
III. POLICY
     The Administrator's memorandum of October 3, 1977 (Attachment A)
spells out three major points of policy emphasis on land treatment of
municipal wastewater as follows:

     1.   The Agency will press vigorously for implementation of land
          treatment alternatives to reclaim and recycle municipal
          wastewaters.

     2.   Rejection of land treatment alternatives shall be supported by
          a complete justification (reason for rejection shall  be  well
          documented in the facilities plan).

     3.   If the Agency deems the level of preapplication treatment to
          be unnecessarily stringent, the costs of achieving the excessive
          level of preapplication treatment will not be considered as
          eligible for EPA cost sharing when determining the total cost
          of a project.

     These points highlight the Agency's role in implementing the  legislative
mandates of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217.   PL 92-500 required EPA to encourage
waste treatment management that recycles nutrients through production of
agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture products.  PL 95-217 re-
emphasizes the intent to encourage innovative/alternative systems  including
land treatment with many tangible incentives including (1) the "115%"
cost preference, (2) 85% Federal grants with the specific set asides,
(3) the eligibility of land for storage, and (4) 100% grants for modification
or replacement if project fails to meet design criteria.  It is imperative
that the Agency moves positively and uniformly to implement land treatment
which is clearly identified as an innovative/alternative technology
which recycles nutrients and conserves energy in conjunction with  wastewater
management.

IV.  IMPLEMENTATION

     The guidance detailed in this PRM will apply to all facility
planning grants (Step 1) awarded 30 days after the date of this PRM.   In
addition it should be applied on a case-by-case basis to those unapproved
facility plans for which it appears that further assessment of land
treatment alternatives could result in: (1) the timely and effective
implementation of a reclamation and recycling alternative; and (2)
benefits to the applicant while making better use of EPA construction
grant funds.

     A.   Action Required

     Facility plans in which land treatment alternatives are eliminated
with only cursory coverage will be rejected as not fulfilling Agency
requirements.  A facility plan should not be approved until  the coverage
of these land treatment alternatives  satisfies the guidance detailed
-------
below.  As a minimum, the coverage of these land treatment processes
will include assessment of at least one slow rate (irrigation)  alternative
and one rapid infiltration alternative.  Coverage of an overland flow
alternative will be optional  (case-by-case) until additional  information
which is presently being developed furnishes design information for
routine construction grant implementation.   The technical  design basis
of these land treatment alternatives will  be in accordance with the "EPA
Design Manual on Land Treatment" (EPA 625/1-77-008), and "Costs of
Wastewater Treatment by Land  Application"  (EPA 430/9-75-003).   To be
adequate, coverage of these land treatment alternatives shall  include
enough detail to support development of costs, except in those  cases
where thorough screening for  available sites shows no suitable  sites
within economic transport distances.  Designs for slow rate systems and
rapid infiltration systems will  include preapplication treatment which
is in accord with the discussion of preapplication in the Design Manual
(pages 5-26 thru 5-30) and summarized in Attachment B.

     A universal requirement  to reduce biochemical oxygen demand and
suspended solids to 30 mg/1 and to disinfect to an average fecal coliform
count of 200/100 ml will be considered as excessively stringent preappli-
cation treatment if specified for all land treatment alternatives.
States shall be requested to  reconsider use of such universal  and
stringent preapplication treatment requirements when it is established
that a lesser level of preapplication treatment will protect the public
health, protect the quality of surface waters and groundwater,  and wil'i
ensure achievement of design  performance for the wastewater management
system.

     States should be encouraged to adopt standards which avoid the use
of uniform treatment requirements for land treatment systems,  including
a minimum of secondary treatment prior to application to the land.  The
EPA guidance on land treatment systems specifies ranges of values and
flexible criteria for .evaluating factors such as preapplication treatment,
wastewater application rates  and buffer zones.  For example, simple
screening or comminution may be appropriate for overland flow systems in
isolated areas with no public access, while extensive biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids control with disinfection may be called for
in the case of slow rate systems in public access areas such as parks or
golf courses.

     B.   Specific Guidance

     The scope of work for preparation of a facility plan will  provide
for thorough evaluation of land treatment alternatives.  This evaluation
of land treatment alternatives may be accomplished in a two-phase approach.
Such a two-phase approach would provide flexibility for establishing
general site suitability and cost competitiveness before requiring
extensive on-site investigations.  The first phase of the two-phase
approach would include adequate detail to establish whether or not sites
are available, wastewater quality is suitable, and land treatment is
-------
cost competitive.   The second phase would include in-depth investigation
of sites and the refinement of system design factors to complete  all  of
the requirements for preparing a facility plan.   Approval  of a facility
plan will ensure that the following details for  evaluation of land
treatment are clearly delineated in the plan.

     1.    Site Selection.   A regional  map shall  be included to show  the
     tracts of land evaluated as probable land treatment sites.   The
     narrative discussion of site evaluation should detail the reasons
     for rejection of tracts as well as the availability of tracts used
     in  the preliminary design for land treatment alternatives.
     Table 2-2 of the Design Manual (Attachment  C) delineates general
     site characteristics for land treatment alternatives  which the
     narrative should cover in detail.

          Categorical  elimination of land treatment for lack of a
     suitable site (during phase one of a two-phase evaluation) should
     be  documented with support materials showing how the  applicant made
     the determination.  For example, elimination for lack of suitable
     soils should be documented with soils information from the area
     Soil Conservation Service representatives or other soil  scientists
     who may be available.  Any categorical  elimination of land treatment
     should demonstrate that additional engineering necessary to  overcome
     site constraints would make the alternative  too costly to fund in
     accordance with the cost-effectiveness requirements of the law.

     2.    Loading Rates and Land Area.    The values for these parameters
     evaluated in the facility plan should concur with the technically
     established ranges for application rates  and land area needed for
     a system.  The cost of land treatment is  sensitive to these  factors
     and overly conservative design unduly inflates the cost of technically
     sound alternatives.  Designs in a  facility  plan should fall  within
     the general  ranges given in Table  2-1 and Figure 3-3  of the  Design
     Manual.  Designs falling outside of these ranges should do so only
     because of extenuating circumstances peculiar to the  site.   These
     extenuating circumstances should be discussed in detail.   Table  2-1
     (Attachment B) is recommended as a quick  reference for determining
     that designs are reasonable.

     3.    Estimated Costs.  The estimated costs of land treatment
     alternatives should be comparable  to those obtained by using
     EPA 430/9-75-003 pages 59-127, updated using local  construction
     cost indices.   Cost estimates generated by  using this source  are
     being compared to actual costs for recently  constructed facilities.
     If  this comparison shows that the  curves  in  EPA 430/9-75-003  need
     adjustment,  corrected curves will  be made available as necessary.

          Elimination of land treatment in the cost-effective analysis
     because of land costs or transport costs  should be documented by
     means of an actual evaluation for  the cost of land or cost of
-------
transport.  This evaluation should show clearly  that the  cost  of
land or the cost of transport does rule out land  treatment  using
the approach shown in "Cost-Effective Comparison  of Land Application
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment"  (EPA 430/9-75-016).   Examples
on pages 23-24 (Attachment D) of that source show how to make these
comparisons.

4.   Preappli cati on Treatment.   The level  of preapplication treatment
prior to storage or actual application to the land should be  in
accordance with the guidance given for screening  wastewaters  to be
applied to the land in the Design Manual.   A universal minimum of
secondary treatment for direct surface discharge  as published in
the August 17, 1973 Federal Register and later  modified  (Federal
Register July 26, 1976 and October 7, 1977) will  not be  accepted
because it is inconsistent with the basic concepts of land  treatment.
Imposition of a defined discharge criteria at an  intermediate point
in a treatment train is, in most instances, an  unnecessarily
stringent preapplication treatment requirement  as stated in the
Administrator's memorandum dated October 3, 1977.   Criteria imposed
at an intermediate point should be for the purpose of ensuring
overall system performance in the same context  that primary sedi-
mentation precedes biological secondary treatment by trickling
filter or activated sludge processes.

     Assessment of the level of preapplication  treatment proposed
should be in accord with the discussion in Section 5.2 (pages 5-26
to 5-30) of the Design Manual.   Guidelines for  evaluating the level
of preapplication for slow-rate, rapid infiltration, and overland
flow systems in relation to existing state regulations,  criteria
and guidelines are included in Attachment E.  Preapplication
treatment criteria more restrictive than the ranges of treatment
levels described in Appendix E will be considered unnecessarily
stringent unless justified on a case-by-case basis.  When the more
stringent preapplication treatment criteria cannot be justified,
the EPA will consider that portion of the project to meet "EPA
guidance as eligible for Agency funding.  The costs of the  additional
preapplication increment needed to meet more stringent preapplication
treatment requirements imposed at the state or  local level  would be
ineligible for Agency funding and thus would be paid for from state
or local funds.

5.   Environmental Effects.  Assessing the environmental effects of
land treatment alternatives involves a somewhat different concept
than for conventional treatment and discharge to  surface waters.
The assessment for land treatment should include  emphasis on  the
quality and quantity of both surface and groundwater resources; on
energy conservation as well as energy demands;  on pollutant (resource)
recycling as well as chemical needs, and on land  use in  the overall
coverage of environmental effects.
-------
          The assessment should determine that the proposed land treatment
     system is in accord with Agency policy on groundwater protection.
     The Agency policy for groundwater resulting from land treatment
     systems is set forth in the criteria for Best Practicable Waste
     Treatment Technology (BPWTT).   These criteria specify that the
     groundwater resulting from a land treatment system must meet different
     requirements depending on current use and quality of the existing
     groundwater.  The basic thrust of these criteria is to protect
     groundwater for drinking water purposes by specifying adherence to
     the appropriate National Primary Drinking Water Standards.  The
     BPWTT criteria further require land treament systems which are
     underdrained or otherwise designed to have a surface discharge to
     meet the standards applicable  to any treatment and discharge
     alternative.  The criteria are fully described in 41 FR 6190
     (February 11, 1976) which is attached as Appendix F.

          An overall Agency policy  statement on groundwater protection
     is scheduled for issuance in the near future.   The draft Agency
     groundwater policy is generally consistent with present criteria
     for land treatment systems. However, any revisions to the present
     guidance on site evaluation and system monitoring as a result of
     this statement will have to be accounted for as they are developed.
     In the meantime, existing guidance should be used to evaluate
     groundwater influences.
Attachments
-------
V.   REFERENCES

     Process Design Manual  for Land Treatment of  Municipal  Wastewater
     EPA 625/1-77-008 October, 1977.

     October 3, 1977 memorandum from Administrator:"EPA Policy  on
     Land Treatment of Municipal  Wastewater".

     "Cost of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application" Technical  Report
     EPA-430/9-75-003 June, 1975.

     "Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application  and Advanced
     Wastewater Treatment"  Technical Report EPA-430/9-75-016,
     November, 1975.

     Secondary Treatment Information Federal  Register 38(129),
     August 17,, 1973, pgs  22298-22299.

     Secondary Treatment Information Federal  Register 41(1440,
     July 26, 1976, pp. 30786-30789.

     Suspended Solids Limitations Federal  Register 42(195),
     October 7, 1977, pp. 54664-54666.

     Water Quality Criteria 1972  EPA-R3-73-033,  March 1973,  pp. 323-366.

     Quality Criteria for Water, USEPA, July, 1976.

     Alternative Waste Management Techniques for  Best Practicable
     Waste Treatment  EPA 430/9-75-013, October,  1975.

     Final Construction Grants Regulations  Federal  Register  39, No.  29
     February 11, 1974.
-------
VI.  ATTACHMENTS

     Attachment A   Administrator's Oct. 3, 1977 memo "EPA Policy on
                    Land Treatment of Municipal  Wastewater"
     Attachment B   Table 2-1 from Design Manual
     Attachment C   Table 2-2 from Design Manual
     Attachment D   Pages 23-24 from EPA 430/9-75-016
     Attachment E   Guidance for assessing level of preapplication
     Attachment F   Alternative Waste Management Techniques (BPWTT)
-------
                                                            ATTACHMENT A
       i   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     v
     f                      WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                 OGT   3 1977
                                                                 THE ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT:   EPA Policy on Lan
          Wastewater

FROM:     The Administr

TO:       Assistant Administrator^ and
          Regional  Administrators  (Regions I-X)


     President Carter's recent Environmental  Message to the Congress
emphasized the design and construction of cost-effective publicly owned
wastewater treatment facilities that encourage water conservation as
well as adequately treat wastewater.  This serves to strengthen the
encouragement under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500} to consider wastewater reclamation and recycling by
land treatment processes.

     At the time P.L. 92-500 was enacted, it was  the intent of Congress
to encourage to the extent possible the development of wastewater manage-
ment policies that are consistent with the fundamental ecological principle
that all  materials should be returned to the cycles from which they were
generated.  Particular attention should be given  to wastewater treatment
processes which renovate and reuse wastewater as  well as recycle the
organic matter'and nutrients in a beneficial  manner.  Therefore, the
Agency will press vigorously for pub!icly owned treatment works to
utilize land treatment processes to reclaim and recycle municipaT~wastewater.

RATIONALE

     Land treatment systems involve the use of plants and the soil to
remove previously unwanted contaminants from wastewaters.  Land treatment
is capable of achieving removal levels comparable to the best available
advanced wastewater treatment technologies while  achieving additional
benefits.  The recovery and beneficial reuse of wastewater and its
nutrient resources through crop production, as well as wastewater
treatment and reclamation, allow land treatment systems to accomplish
far more than most conventional treatment and discharge alternatives.
-------
     The application of wastewater on land is  a  practice  that  has  been
used for many decades; however,  recycling and  reclaiming  wastewater  that
may involve the planned recovery of nutrient resources  as part of  a
designed wastewater treatment facility is a relatively  new technique.
One of the first such projects was the large scale Muskegon, Michigan,
land treatment demonstration project funded under the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1966 (P.L.  84-660), which  began
operations in May 1974.

     Reliable wastewater treatment processes that utilize land treatment
concepts to recycle resources through agriculture, silviculture and
aquaculture practices are available.  The technology for  planning,
designing, constructing and operating land treatment facilities is
adequate to meet both 1983 and 1985 requirements and goals of  P.L. 92-
500.

     Land treatment is also presently in extensive use for treatment of
many industrial wastewaters, particularly those with easily degraded
'trganics such as food processing.  Adoption of suitable in-plant pretreatnent
for the removal of excessive metals and toxic substances  would expand
t^e potential for land treatment of industrial wastewater and  further
enhance the potential for utilization of municipal wastewater  and sludges
far agricultural purposes.

APPROACH

     Because land treatment processes contribute  to the reclamation and
recycling requirements of P.L. 92-500, they Should be preferentially :j
considered as an alternative wastewater management technology.  Such
consideration is particularly critical for smaller communities.  While
it  is recognized that acceptance* is not universal, the utilization ofi
land treatment  systems has  the potential for saving billions of dollars.
This will benefit not only  the nationwide water pollution control program,
but will also provide an additional mechanism for the recovery and   b
recycling of wastewater as  a resource.

     EPA currently requires each  applicant for construction grant funds
to make a conscientious analysis  of wastewater management alternatives
with the burden  upon  the applicant  to examine all available alternative
technologies.   Therefore,  if a method that encourages water conservation,
wastewater reclamation and  reuse  is not recommended, the applicant should
be  required  to  provide complete  justification for the rejection"of"
land treatment.

      Imposition  of  stringent wastewater  treatment requirements prior to
land application nas  quite  often  nullified  the cost-effectiveness of
land  treatment  processes  in the  past.  We must ensure  that appropriate
Federal, State  and  local requirements and  regulations are imposed at the
-------
                                   3

proper point in the treatment system and are not 'jsed in a manner that
may arbitrarily block land treatment projects.   Whenever States  insist
upor placing unnecessarily stringent preappl ication treatment require-
ments upon land treatment, such a;T regufrlng EPA secondary effluent
quality In all  cases "prior to application on the land,  the unnecessary
wastewater treatment facilities will not be funded by E PA~!  This should
encourage the States to re-examine -and revise their criteria, and so
reduce the cost burden, especially to small communities, for construction
and operation of unnecessary or too costly facilities.   The reduction of
potentially toxic metals and organics in industrial discharges to municipal
systems often is critical to the success of land treatment.  The development
and enforcement at the local level of pretreatment standards that are
consistent with national pretreatment standards should  be required as an
integral  part of any consideration or final selection of land treatment
alternatives.  In addition, land treatment alternatives must be  fully
coordinated with on-going areawide planning under section 208 of the
Act.  Section 208 agencies should be involved in the review and  development
of land treatment options.

     Research will be continued to further improve criteria for  preappl i-
cation treatment and other aspects of land treatment processes.   This
will add to our knowledge and reduce uncertainties about health  and
environmental factors.  I am confident, however, that land treatment of
municipal wastewaters can be accomplished without adverse effects on
human health if proper consideration is given to design and management
of the system.
  n
INTER-OFFICE COORDINATION
         implementation of more recent mandates from the Safe Drinking
Water; Act (P.L. 93-532), the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469),
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580)
must1" be closely coordinated with the earlier mandate to recycle wastes
and fully evaluate land treatment in P.L. 92-500.  Agencywide coordination
is especially important to the proper management of section 201 of P.L.
92-500, because the construction and operation of thousands of POTW's
involve such a broad spectrum of environmental issues.  A concerted
ef-fort must be made to avoid unilateral actions, or even the appearance
of unilateral actions, which satisfy a particular mandate of one Act
while inadvertently conflicting with a major Agency policy based upon
another Act.  The intention of P.L. 92-500, as it concerns land treatment,
is compatible with the pertinent aspects of more recent environmental
legislation.

ACTION REQUIRED

     Each of you must exert maximum effort to ensure that the actions of
your staffs reflect clearly visible encouragement of wastewater reclamation
and  recycling of pollutants through land treatment processes in order to
move toward the national goals of conserving water and eliminating the
discharge of pollutants in navigable waters by 1985.
-------
     This policy will  apply to  all  future municipal  construction grant
activities,  as well  as all  current  grant applications  in  the Step  1
category that have not been approved  as of  this  date.   Detailed  information
and guidance for implementation of  this policy  is  under preparation and will
be issued in the near future.
-------
                          ATTACHMENT B



































1
CM
UJ
_1
C3
^~





















































(/)

«/)

UJ
O
s
o.

1—
z
UJ
[•;
UJ
c£

r^
Q

^^



C£.
O
U.
UJ
as
2

<^
UJ



S

i/^
UJ
C2

0


O




%
o
^j


























v»
v»
K
O
0.
u
gi

o




















0
l/>
Ol
u
o
0.

,

CL


C
u
Qb




































41

"2

3
10







VI
c

"g



s
,2
<«-


i




a

c
o
-l-t
•a
^t
c

^


•3

a:








^




VI









Q)
3


u!




a>
c
_^
"tt

aj

>w
u
3
3





a

i.
-* U
C -3
— t«*
=» 3
V) vl




O

^
>y
!x u
c *s


a. 3
W1 VI


U
tj
W
3


x



3





O


aj

c *J

u u
a. 3
1/1 vi
VI

3
cr
'c


CU


O


U


a.
<°






a
r*» 2 O
CO 
<— > rsj
o
0 •" 3

^ f— "*






CT 0

O '—
O O -J
_ _ o


i— — CM VO




Q


^fl r—
O
*- O O
o







o
a in
f\t O
o •>-
o —
•U Lf>
CM \O O

I

-a Z
— dj O,
a u a.

fl H* O


e
o

«j
«
x c
- a

Q_ t/1




C
O

13
X C
— -o

a. vi



"2 _
*3 ^3

eri o

c «
•u
aj w

o '>.



c
o
13

4^
X C
U CU


•— -a
k V
CL VI




CJ
5


x c

'a 3

— "3
- a
CU VI
c
a

A.J
«3 TJ
U 0
••• -0 i«

C. > —
=. a -o


0. 3  a c
UJ O. T3

13 c
C O
4-»
**- -^
o *^
c a. c
3 vi o
1- C 5J —
•a ^ ->
sj •- o ia

•a o 'o
*- C^-S 'J

3 > — GJ
v/i aj 3 a.



0

4^

X —
^- o
— u
rj a;
Z a.


5

i 3
a. .0

= o
u u

o a.
0.
03 T3
> C




U
u



o 5

C v»
£ 3

•— -o
VI 0


vi a.
a S"







fl
c
o
a.
O







•a
u
3
Q-
a








••3

fw

c-

s





r*m

(—
o

a.
O








-a


3
cr
(X



c
o




o
CJ


o


CJ
z
















2

X
5
CO

w
^
^
-1
J£

•—

o




-g
*J
^
o • a.
•a 3

o — a

a> -J


py — •— w
a. 5 -• -3 a
— * 0 C JS
U k S 0 ~>
*J ^j 'y U
•^ l/l VI C
a 5 3 -a
"2 =, -o 5 c
C c cj cy
^i — = = 3
•o o o *-
T3 3 o o '—



a "- »- j=
u - o o -
a S c e *•
>». a o o
t VI •— —
t3 e, -> -> a
C w -tl -^ v»
 o

— — .—
2-2
-------
                          ATTACHMENT C
































CM
1
CM
UJ
J
CO
^^
1—















































00
UJ
oo
00
UJ
o
o
0£
0.
I—
2:
UJ


£r

UJ
oi
H"*

a
<:

Ci
O
u_

co
t—4
1—
Cy)

ej

^

<
~ ij^
0 vl

a
rxj ••
•o
c c

^rf
-a
ui a*
c/i -^J
CU "3











^
3
C
O
C
^
o


0 0













•a
"a.

i.
0


I

c/l




CU
O 4-1

u
3 HI
o -a
in S

•
i^ 41

rO- w *^ ^ «-"»

0 3 0 i-
— • • 5 u
VI VI U —
3 4J ,— CU !-
2 — •- c. u

VI VI VI -^ ^3


•>>
O

vT
•o
-o
VI

^•^
-a vi

n rj
a: vi




a
•a
3 •—
O Q-
VI l-
>» >>

CU CU
is o
!_ 1.
cu a
•a ~^
i§

>,
*•*
^
j^
4
cy
£
a.

,_«

0

•9

•^
^.
i—
U

0
z


u

^
L.
U
o
•z.

fait
fl
u



u
4_)
o
z

vi to
jr i-
4^ CU
a ~3 vi
-3 •—
CU
t. r— CD
O ^3 O>
vi .-a 113
VI 4J C
S) O--'- ^~

^^ (J U CL!
U T3 -3

>4- CU >
O '- = !_
— -a 3 a.



^p>«
sr
3
S

C
_g


'4—
.
S -a
CU "O ^- U
31 a O CO
« 4) U .C
1- C 4J
4-1 CU O CJ
VI J3 >*- 3
_
z 1-
4-1 CU

O O — '

CU 11
era 2
i- ^3 -a
O CU r—
4-t a o
t/J C U

!^>
-*~
•3
O T3
S •—
O
>| U
•^-* ^M
VI
vi cr
o o — •>

•b^^ 4^ CU
m J=
fU S- 4-»
o a. ai
z o s


-a ^3
n c
•3 a
CJ I-
c cy
~ ^j —
CU >4 o
4-1 CU •*-

O fl
-3 -J
ci o a.
«3 CJ •"—
U U
O 1- '11
4J 0 U
vi t- a.




t/i
c
o
CJ W
i- O
4-) ••«

S 4-1
•— VI
u —
































































3.
in
a

Q
u

4-1
14.
,-
2-3
-------
                                                 ATTACHMENT D

Example No. 2

Requirements.  An existing 20-mgd activated  sludge  plant is
required to upgrade its effluent quality  to  meet  the  following
criteria:
                        BOD -  10 mg/1
                        SS  -  10 mg/1
                        N   -   3 mg/1
                        P   -  0.5 mg/1

Alternatives.  It is evident from a  review of  Table 2 that
the only methods of treatment  capable of  providing  the neces-
sary degree of treatment are AWT-4 and  irrigation.   In this
example, the cost of AWT-4 is  compared  with  that  of irrigation
under varying conditions of conveyance  distance  (Case A) and
land costs  (Case B).  Since secondary treatment  is  existing,
activated sludge or aerated lagoon will not  be necessary.

Case A  -  Consider a moderately  favorable site  for
           irrigation, a distance of 5  miles away from
           the existing treatment plant site.  How
           much can be paid for land and  have  the
           irrigation system competitive  with  the
           AWT-4 system?
             Table  12.  COST COMPARISON FOR  CASE  A
Treatment -
method
AWT -4


Irrigation





Cost component
AWT-4
Existing activated
sludge adjustment
Total
Irrigation system
Aerated lagoon
adjustment
Land cost
Subtotal
Amount available
for land » (28.0-13.0)
Total area, acres
Allowable cost/acra
20 mgd (15C/1.000 gal.MlO-3)
Cost
C/1,000 gal.
44.0
-(16.0)
28.0
24.0
-(4.3)
-(6.7)
13.0
15.0
4 ,300
4 . son
Source
Figure
Figure

figure
Figure
Table

Table


1
1

1
1
7

7

                      (0.0154)(4,300 acres)
                               23
-------
Conclusions.   Under the assumed site conditions for the
irrigation system, as much as $4,500 per acre could be paid
for land and have the irrigation system competitive with
AWT-4.
Case B  -  Consider a moderately favorable irrigation site
           at a cost of $2,000 per acre.  How far away from
           the existing treatment plant could the site be
           and have the irrigation system competitive with
           AWT-4?
             Table 13.  COST COMPARISON FOR CASE B
Treatment
method
AWT-4-
Irrigation





Cost component
From Case A
Irrigation system
Aerated lagoon adjustment
Conveyance cost
Subtotal
Amount available for
conveyance = (28. C - 18.0)
Allowable distance, miles
Cost
C/1,000 gal. Source
28.
24.
-(4.
-u_.
18.
10.
33
0
0
3)
21
0
0

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 1
Table 7

__
Table 4
Conclusions.  Under the assumed site conditions  for  the
irrigation  system, wastewater could be conveyed  as far as
33 miles and have irrigation be competitive with AWT-4.
Special conditions such as river or highway crossings and
easements may add substantial costs and  reduce this  distanc
somewhat.
                              24
-------
                                                       ATTACHMENT E


       Guidance for Assessing Level  of Preapplication Treatment


I.   Slow-rate Systems (reference sources include Water Quality Criteria
     1972, EPA-R3-73-003, Water Quality Criteria EPA 1976,  and various
     state guidelines).

     A.   Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
          restricted public access and when limited  to crops not for
          direct human consumption.

     B.   Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes plus
          control of fecal coliform count to less than 1,000 MPN/100 ml
          acceptable for controlled agricultural irrigation except for
          human food crops to be eaten raw.

     C.   Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes with
          additional BOD or SS control as needed for aesthetics plus
          disinfection to log mean of 200/100 ml (EPA fecal coliform
          criteria for bathing waters) - acceptable  for application in
          public access  areas such as parks and  golf courses.

II.   Rapid-infiltration  Systems

     A.   Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
          restricted public access.

     B.   Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes - acceptable
          for urban Icoations with controlled public access.

III.  Overland-flow Systems

     A.   Screening or comminution - acceptable  for  isolated sites with
          no public access.

     B.   Screening or comminution plus aeration to  control odors during
          storage or application - acceptable for urban locations with
          no public access.
-------
              ATTACIIiJEilT F
 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1976
PART IV:
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
 ALTERNATIVE WASTE
    MANAGEMENT
 TECHNIQUES FOR BEST
 PRACTICABLE WASTE
     TREATMENT

       Supplement
-------
 6190

   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                AGENCY
               [FRL 482-«]

 ALTERNATIVE   WASTE    MANAGEMENT
   TECHNIQUES FOR  BEST PRACTICABLE
   WASTE TREATMENT
               Supplement
   Pursuant to  Section 304(d) (2) of the
 Federal  Water Pollution  Control  Act
 Amendments of 1972 (Pub.  L. 92-500),
 the  Environmental  Protection Agency
 (EPA), gave notice on October 23, 1975
 (40 PR 49598)  that Alternative Waste
 Management Techniques for Best Prac-
 ticable Waste Treatment has been pub-
 lished  in final  form. The  final report
 contains the criteria for best practicable
 waste treatment technology and infor-
 mation on  alternative  waste  manage-
 ment techniques.
   The criteria for Best Practicable Waste
 Treatment  for  Alternatives employing
 land application  techniques and  land
 utilization  practices  required  that  the
 ground water resulting from land appli-
 cation of wastewater meet the standards
 tor  chemical quality [inorganic chemi-
 cals] and pesticides [organic chemicals]
 specified In  the EPA  Manual for Evalu-
 ating Public Drinking Water Supplies in
 the  case of groundwater  which  poten-
 tially can be  used for  drinking water
 supply. In addition to the standards for
 chemical  quality   and  pesticides,  the
 bacteriological standards [microbiologi-
 cal contaminants] specified  hi  the EPA
 Manual for  Evaluating Drinking Water
 Supplies  were required  in the  case  of
 groundwater which is presently  being.
 used as a  drinking water supply. The
 pertinent section of the EPA Manual for
 Evaluating Public, Drinking Water Sup-
 plies was included as  Appendix  D of the
 Alternative  Waste Management Tech-
 niques for Best Practicable Waste Treat-
 ment report.
   Also specified in the Criteria  for Best
 Practicable  Waste Treatment  is that
 "any chemical, pesticides, or bacterio-
 logical standards for drinking water sup-
 ply sources hereafter issued by EPA shall
 automatically apply In lieu of the stand-
 ards  in the EPA Manual for Evaluating
 Public  Drinking  Water  Supplies.  The
 National   Interim  Primary Drinking
 Water  Regulations were  published in
final form on December  24,  1975.
   In consideration  of  the  foregoing,
 Chapter n and Appendix D  of Alterna-
 tive Waste Management Techniques for
 Best Practicable Waste Treatment shall
 read as follows.

   Dated: February 4,1976.
                 RtrssEiL E. TRAIN,
                       Administrator.
               CHAFTO n
   CRITERIA FOB BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE
               TBCXTMXNT
   Applicants  for construction  grant fundc
 authorized by Section 201 of the Act must
 have  evaluated alternative  waste treatment
 management  techniques and  selected the
 technique which will provide for the appll-
                 NOTICES

 cation of best  practicable waste treatment
 technology. Alternatives must be considered
 In three broad broad categories: treatment
 and discharge  Into navigable waters, land
 application  and utilization practices,  and
 reuse of treated wastewater. An alternative
 Is "best practicable" If It Is determined
 to be cost-effective in accordance with the
 procedures set forth In 40  CFR  Part 35
 (Appendix B to this  document) and If It
 will meet the criteria  set forth below.
   (A)  Alternatives Employing  Treatment
 and Discharge into Navigable Waters. Pub-
 licly-owned  treatment   works  employing
 treatment and discharge Into navigable  wa-
 ters shall, as a minimum, achieve the degree
 of treatment attainable by the application
 of secondary treatment as denned in 40 CFR
 133' (Appendix  C). Requirements for addi-
 tional treatment, or alternate management
 techniques, will depend on several  factors,
 Including availability of cost-effective tech-
 nology, cost  and the specific characteristics
 of the affected receiving water  body.
   (B) Alternatives  Employing  Land  Appli-
 cation' Techniques  and  Land Utilization
 Practices. Publicly-owned treatment works
 employing land application techniques  and
 land utilization practices which result in a
 discharge to navigable waters shall meet the
 criteria for treatment and discharge under
 Paragraph (A) above.
   The ground water resulting from the land
 application of wastewater, including the af-
 fected native ground water, shall meet  the
 following criteria:
   Case 1: The ground  water can potentially
 be used for drinking water supply.
   (1)  The maximum contaminant levels for
 Inorganic chemicals and  organic chemicals
 specified  in  the National' Interim  Primary
 Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141)
 (Appendix D) for drinking water supply sys-
 tems should not be exceeded except  as Indi-
 cated below (see Note l).
   (2)  If  the  existing concentration of a
 parameter exceeds  the maximum contami-
 nant levels for-Inorganic chemicals or organic
 chemicals, there should not be an  increase
 in the concentration of that parameter due
 to land application of wastewater.
   Case IT: The ground  water is used  for
 drinking water supply.
   (1)  The criteria for Case I should be met.
   (2)  The maximum  microbiological con-
 taminant levels for drinking  water supply
 systems  specified In the National  Interim
 Primary  Drinking  Water Regulations  (40
 CFR 141) (Appendix D)  should not be  ex-
 ceeded in cases where the- ground water Is
 used without disinfection (see Note  1).
   Case ni: Uses other than drinking water
 supply.
   (1)  Ground water criteria should be estab-
 lished by the Regional Administrator based
 on the present or potential use of the ground
 water.
   The Regional Administrator In conjunction
 with the  appropriate State officials and  the
 grantee  shall determine on a site-by-site
.basis the areas- In the vicinity of a  specific
 land application site where the criteria in
 Case I, n, and  HI  shall apply. Specifically
 determined shall  be the monitoring require-
 ments appropriate for the project site. This
 determination shall  be made with the objec-
 tive of protecting the ground water for use
 as a drinking  water supply and/or  other
 designated uses as appropriate and prevent-
 ing Irrevocable damage to ground water. Re-
 quirements shbll include provisions for mon-
 itoring the effect on  the native ground water/
   (C)  Alternatives  Employing  Reuse. The
 total quantity of any pollutant In the effluent
 from a reuse project which Is directly at-
 tributable to the effluent from a publicly-
 owned treatment works shall not exceed that
 which would have been allowed under Par-
 agraphs (A) and (B) above.
   NOTE 1.—Any amendments of the National
 Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
 and any National Revised Primary Drinking
 Water Regulations hereafter Issued by EPA
 prescribing standards for public water sys-
 tem relating to inorganic  chemicals, organic
 chemicals  or microbiological contamination
 shall automatically apply  in the same man-
 ner as the National Interim Primary Drink-
 Ing Water Regulations.

                APPENDIX  D
        GROUND WATER REQUIREMENTS
   The  following, maximum   contaminant
 levels contained in the National Interim Pri-
 mary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR
 141) 'are reprinted for convenience and clar-
 ity. The National Interim Primary Drinking
 Water Regulations were  published  in final
 form  In the PEDERAE REGISTER on  Decem-
 ber 24, 1976. In accordance with the criteria
 for best practicable waste treatment, 40 CFR
 141 should he consulted In Its entirety when
 applying the standards contained therein to
 wastewater  treatment systems employing
 land apppllcatlon techniques and land uti-
 lization practices.
   Maximum  contaminant  levels  for inot-
 ganiC chemicals. The following are the max-
 imum levels of inorganic chemicals  other
 than  fluoride:
                                 Level
                              (milligrams
 Contaminant:                  per liter)
    Arsenic 	    o. 05
    Barium	    .1.
    Cadmium	    0. 010
    Chromium	    0.05'
    Lead  	    0.05
    Mercury  	    0.002
    Nitrate (asN)	   10.
    Selenium	    0.01
    Silver	    0.05

  The  maximum  contaminant  levels for
 fluoride are:
   Temperature
   Fahrenheit'
                 Degrees Celsius
 •Level
(milligrams
"per liter)
53.7 and below	12apdbelow	        2.4
53.8to&8.3	12.1tol4.6	        2.2
58.41083.8	14.7tol7.8	        2.0
63.9to70.6	17.7to21.4	_        1.8
70.7to79.2:~	21.5to26.2	        1.6
79.3 to 90.5	-28.3 to 32.5	        1.4
  i Annual average of the  tniTtmmn dally air tem-
perature.
  Maximum contaminant levels for organic
chemicals. The following are the maximum
contaminant levels for organic chemicals:
                                 Level
                               (milligram
(a) Chlorinated hydrocarbons:   per liter)
    Endrln (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-
      6,7 - epoxy - l,4,4a,B,6,7,8,8a-oc-
      tahydro-l,4-endo,endo - 5,8-di-
      methano naphthalene)	0.0002
    Undane (1,2,3,4,5,6 - Hexachloro-
      cycloh'exane, gamma Jsomer) — 0.004
    Methoxychlor  (1,1,1-Trlehloro-g.
      2-bls [p-methoxyphenyl] eth-
      ane)  		0.1
    Toxaphene (C^H^Cl, - Technical
      .chlorinated camphene, 67 to 69
      percent chlorine,)	0.006
(b) Chlorophenoxys:
    2,4-D (2,4,-Dlchlorophenoxyacetic
      acid) 	0.1
    2,4,8-TP Silver (2,4,5-Trfchloro-
      phenoxyproplonlc  add)	0.01
                              FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 41, NO. 2»—WEDNESDAY,  FEBRUARY 11,  197*
-------
                                                          NOTICES
                                                                              6191
  Maximum  microbiological  contaminant
levels. The maximum, contaminant levels for
collform bacteria, applicable to community
water systems  and  non-community water
systems, are as follows:
  (a) When the membrane filter technique
pursuant to § 141.21 (a) Is used, the number
of collform bacteria shall not exceed any of
the following:
  (1) One  per 100  mllllUters as the arith-
metic mean of all samples  examined  per
month pursuant to § 14151 (b) or (c);
  (2) Four per 100 mllllliters In more than
one sample when less than 20 are examined
per month; or
  (3) Four per 100 mllllliters In more than
five percent of the samples when 20 or more
are examined per month.
  (b)  (1)  When  the  fermentation  tube
method and 10 milllllter standard portions
pursuant to § 141.21 (a) are used, collform
bacteria shall not be present In any of the
following:
  (i) More than 10 percent of the portions In
any  month pursuant to 5 141.21  (b) or (c);
  (11) Three or more portions In more than
one  sample when less  than 20  samples  are
examined per month; or
  (Ul)  Three or more portions tn more than
five percent of the samples when 20 or more
samples are  examined per month.
  (2) When the fermentation tube method
and  100 mllliliter standard portions pursuant
to {141.21 (a) are  used,  collform bacteria
shall not be present in'any of the following:
  (i) More than 60 percent of the portions
in any month  pursuant to  5 141.21  (b)  or
(c);
  (li) Five portions in more than one sample
when less than five samples are  examined
per month; or
  (ill) Five portions in more than 20 percent
of the samples when five or more samples
are examined per month.
  (c) For community  or  non-community
systems that are required to sample at a rate
of less than 4 per month, compliance with
Paragraphs (a), (b) (1), or (2) shall be based
upon sampling during a 3 month period, ex-
cept that, at  the discretion of the State,
compliance may  be based upon  sampling
during a one-month period.

  [PR Doc.78-3932 Filed 2-10-«;8:4&  am]
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41,  NO. 29—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 197«
-------
  I   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  5                      WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                           NCV 1 7 1978
                                                        OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                       HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                        Program Requirements Memorandum
                                        PRM No. 79-4
Subject:  Discount Rate

From:     John T.  Rhett,  Deputy  Assistant .Administrator 00^*1*7
          for Water Program  Operations  (WH  546)         }

To:       Water Division  Directors
          Regions  I - X


     Enclosed is a copy of  the notice published  by  the Water Resources
Council of the new discount rate of  6 7/8 percent.  The new rate was
effective as of October 1,  1978.  Cost-effectiveness analyses in new
facility planning  starts  are to  be based upon  the rate of 6 7/8 percent.

     We have arranged to  distribute  the enclosed information to consulting
engineers through  the newsletter of  the Consulting  Engineers Council.
Please distribute  copies  of  this information to  the States for use in
their programs.

Enclosure
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 209—FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27,  1978
        [84 0-01-M]                 50276

            WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL.

         PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS FOR PLANNING
           WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES

                 Change in Dncount Rat*

          Notice is hereby given that the inter-
        est rate to be used by Federal agencies
        in the formulation and evaluation of
        plans for water and related land re-
        sources is  7'/8 percent for the period
        October  1, 1978-through and including
        September 30, 1979.
          The rate has been computed  in ac-
        cordance  with Chapter IV, D., "The
        Discount Rate" in the "Standards for
        Planning Water and Related Land Re-
        sources"  of  the   Water Resources
        Council,  as amended  (39 FR 29242),
        and is to be used by all Federal agen-
        cies in  plan formulation  and evalua-
        tion  of  water and  related  land re-
        sources projects for the purpose of dis-
        counting future  benefits and comput-
        ing  costs,  or otherwise  converting
        benefits  and costs to a common time
        basis.
          The Department of the  Treasury on
        October  19, 1978 informed the Water
        Resources  Council pursuant  to  chap-
        ter IV, D., Cb) that the interest rate
        would be 7Vs  percent based upon the
        formula  set forth in chapter IV, D.,
        (a-): "* *  * the average yield during the
        preceding Fiscal Year on interest-hear-
        ing   marketable   securities   of  the
        United States which, at the  time the
        computation is made, have terms of-15
        years or more remaining  to  maturity
        • * *." However,  chapter IV, D., (a)
        further  provides  '" • *  that  in no
        event shall the rate be raised or low-
        ered more than  one-quarter  of  1 per-
        cent for any year."  Since the rate in
        fiscal year 1978 was 6% percent (42 FR
        58232), the rate for fiscal year 1979 is
        67/s percent.
          Dated: October 24, 1978.
                            LEO M. EISEL,
                                  Director.
         [FR Doc. 78-30408 Piled 10-26-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 210—MONDAY, OCTOSER 30, 1978
         [1505-01-M]                 50537

            WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

         PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS FOR PLANNING
           WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES

                 Change in Dixovnt Rate

                     Correction

          In FR  Doc.  78-30408 appearing at
         page 50276 in the issue for Friday, Oc-
         tober 27, 1978, in the first paragraph
         of the document, the  interest rate re-
         ferred to as	7vs  percent" should
         have read "* '  • 6V8 percent * * *".
-------
l^jpZ.g    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 ^    -**                     WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460


                DEC 28 1978                    Construction  Grants
                                                Program Requirements Memorandum
                                                PRM No. 79-5
   SUBJECT:  Construction Incentive Program

   FROM:     John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
             for Water Program Operations  (WH-546)         /

   TO:       Regional  Administrator
             Regions  I-X
   Purpose

        This memorandum provides guidance and policy pertaining  to  the
   application of the construction incentive (CI)  clause to the  construction
   phase of a project (Step 3).

   Discussion

        The construction incentive program provides  a mechanism  by  which
   contractors on construction grant projects can  be motivated to use their
   construction expertise to improve contract performance and thereby
   create an overall  reduction in the total  cost of  the contract.   This
   motivation is commonly achieved through monetary  incentives and  its
   success has been well demonstrated in direct procurement by other
   Federal agencies and in private enterprise.

        Section 21 2(2) (c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
   Amendments of 1972 requires the use of a cost-effective approach to
   wastewater treatment projects.  This requirement  is being met primarily
   by applying a cost-effectiveness analysis in the  Step 1  project  and
   value engineering  in Step 2.   It is now clear that the application of  a
   cost reduction incentive program, which is commonly called value engineering
   in other Federal agencies, to a project during  construction can  also be
   potentially effective in reducing project costs.

        Because experience in construction incentive approaches  under a
   grant program is limited, program participation by the grantee and
   contractors is voluntary.  However, technical and cost data for  each
   construction incentive change proposal  (CICP) submitted by the contractor
   must be carefully  reviewed.  Accordingly, necessary arrangements will  be
   made with the Corps of Engineers (COE)  to provide the needed  expertise
   and resources for  the CICP review process.
-------
Policy:

     By this memorandum, the grantee may include a  CI  clause,  (see
attached), as part of the construction bid package  using  the  procedures
described in this memorandum.

     In order to ensure that each CICP will  be properly reviewed  and
implemented, the number of projects to have the CI  clause should  be
limited by the Region.   The actual  number of CI clauses authorized will
depend on a number of factors  determined through experience in imple-
menting the program, including the time needed to review  and  process
each CICP and the nature of the CICP's received.  In addition, the use
of the CICP clause is limited  to projects having a  Step 3 eligible cost
exceeding $10 million.   The Region should report to Headquarters  whenever
a contract is allowed to include the CI clause.  Headquarters  concurrence
is necessary for approval or rejection of each major CICP received. (See
A-3 under Procedure).

     The prime contractor and  his subcontractors may participate  in the
construction incentive program when the CI clause is part of  the  approved
bid package.  However,  participation of subcontractors must be through
the prime contractor. In addition,  the sharing arrangement must be
mutually agreed upon by the prime contractor and the subcontractor prior
to the submittal of a construction incentive change proposal  (CICP).

     To ensure the program's effectiveness and integrity, individuals
and firms who have prior involvement in the project design or in  other
value engineering activity prior to Step 3 grant are not  eligible to
participate, directly or indirectly, in the development and preparation
of a CICP or monetary sharing  of any resulting savings.

     While the CICP is being processed, the contractor should continue
the construction activity as scheduled.  The additional engineering fees
associated with the evaluation and implementation of the  CICP are grant
eligible.

Implementation:

     Effective immediately, the grantee may include the EPA/CI clause  as
part of the construction bid package for projects having  a Step 3
eligible cost of more than $10 million when approved in accordance with
this memorandum.

Procedure:

A.   Inclusion of the CI Clause in a Contract

     The grantee may submit a  written request for inclusion of the CI
clause in a contract.  Ideally, such requests should be made  prior to
applying for the Step 3 grant.  The Region should respond to  such requests
in writing and when the request is approved, a copy of the approval
correspondence should be forwarded to Headquarters  for information.
-------
B.   Approval of a CICP

     When a CICP is submitted by the contractor in response to the CI
clause, the grantee will proceed with the following procedural steps:

     1.   Expeditiously distribute copies of the CICP to the following
          offices for review:

          a.  3 copies to the Regional EPA
          b.  1 copy to the State agency
          c.  1 copy to the project designer

     2.   The Region will forward 1 copy of the CICP to Headquarters and
          1 copy to the appropriate office of the COE for technical  and
          cost review.

     3.   When a CICP having a potential gross cost reduction of more
          than $500,000 is received, the Region should immediately
          notify Headquarters.  Upon receipt of the notice, a special
          team of Headquarters staff with the necessary construction
          experience will be designated to provide assistance to the
          grantee and Region in the review and approval of the CICP.

     4.   The grantee will provide follow-up coordination with the
          project designer, State and EPA.

     5.   The grantee will review all comments and, when appropriate,
          call a special meeting with all concerned parties to resolve
          any outstanding comments.

     6.   Subject to State and EPA concurrence, the grantee will notify
          the contractor in writing of the conclusion of the meeting and
          the decision made on the CICP.
-------
                     Construction Incentive Clause
                  The EPA Construction  Grants  Program
I.    Purpose
     This clause defines a "construction  incentive  change  proposal"
     (CICP)  and establishes the policy and  procedures  for  the  application
     of CICP's in the Step 3 grant process  of  the EPA  Construction
     Grants  Program.
II.   CICP
     A.    Definition:   A CICP  is  a  formally  written  proposal  for  a
          change order during  the construction  of  a  wastewater  treatment
          project funded under the  EPA Construction  Grants  Program.  A
          CICP must be initiated, developed  and identified  as such  by
          the contractor or his subcontractor.   A  CICP must result  in a
          gross capital  saving of $50,000  or more.

          A CICP must  result in a net capital cost reduction  while
          causing no increase  in  the  total life cycle cost  of the
          project and  meeting  the following  conditions.

          1.    The required function, reliability  and safety  of
               the project will  be  maintained.

          2.    The proposed change  will  not  result in any contract
               rebidding.

          3.    The proposed change  must be in compliance with Section
               204(a)(6) of the Federal  Water Pollution Control Act
               Amendments  of 1972 which prohibits  proprietary and
               restrictive specifications  for bids in connection
               with construction  grant projects.

          4.    The proposed change  will  not  cause  undue interruption
               of the  contract work.

          5.    The proposed change  must be in compliance with local
               permits and regulations.

     B.    Applicability:  Subject to  the EPA's  approval this  clause
          applies to all contracts  for the construction of  wastewater
          treatment projects funded under  the EPA  Construction  Grants
          Program (Step  3  grants).

     C.    Content:  A  CICP must contain pertinent  information and
          supporting documents for  evaluation by the involved contracting
          authority.  As a minimum, the following  information should be
          included.
-------
1.   Name of individuals  associated  with  the  development
     and preparation of the CICP.

2.   A detailed description and duly signed plans  and  speci-
     fications as presently designed and  the  proposed  changes.
     Clear identification of any advantages and  disadvantages
     for each change.

3.   A detailed procedure and schedule for implementing
     the proposed change.  This should include all  neces-
     sary contract amendments.   Also indicated must be the
     latest date the CICP must be approved for implementation.

4.   A summary of estimated costs to include  the following:

     a.   project construction costs before and  after
          the CICP.  This should be  a detailed estimate
          identifying the following  items for each trade
          involved in the CICP:

          1.  quantities of materials and equipment
          2.  unit prices of materials and equipment
          3.  labor hours and rates  for installation
          4.  subcontractor and prime contractor mark-ups

     b.   operation and maintenance  costs before and
          after the CICP;

     c.   costs for implementing the CICP not included in
          item 4a above;

     d.   contractor's share of the  savings based on para-
          graph III below;

     e.   other data as required in  section 35.938-5(b)(c)
          •and (d) of the construction grants  regulations;

     f.   time required for executing the proposed change;

To the extent indicated below, contractors may restrict  the
Environmental Protection Agency's and the project owner's  use
of any construction incentive change proposal or the supporting
data submitted pursuant to this program.   Suggested wording
for inclusion in CICP's is provided  below:

     "This data furnished pursuant to the construction incentive
     clause of contract	shall not be disclosed  beyond
     that which is necessary to accomplish the review, or
     duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part,  for
     any purpose other than to evaluate a value  engineering
     proposal submitted under said clause. This restriction
     does not limit the Government's right to use information
     contained in this data if it is or has been obtained,  or
     is otherwise available, from the contractor, or from
-------
               another source, without limitations.  If such a proposal
               is accepted by the owner under said contract after the
               use of this data in such an evaluation, the United States
               Environmental Protection Agency and the project owner
               shall have the right to duplicate, use, and disclose any
               data reasonably necessary to the full  utilization of such
               proposal as accepted, in any manner and for any purpose
               whatsoever, and have others so do."

     The grantee may, subject to approval by the State and EPA, modify,
accept or reject the CICP.  However, if a CICP were modified or were not
acted upon within the time frame specified in the CICP, the contractor
may withdraw, in part or in whole, the CICP.  In any event, the grantee
will not be liable for the cost of developing the CICP withdrawn or
rejected.

     When a CICP is accepted by the grantee, the processing procedure
specified under Section 35.938-5 for change orders should be used and
approval of the CICP by the State and EPA is required.  When a CICP is
rejected, the con-tractor may not appeal to EPA.

III. Sharing Provisions

Construction Cost Sharing             0

     Upon acceptance of a CICP, the contractor will share the net capital
savings pursuant to this contract based on the formula below.  Computation
for the net savings is to be based on the following formula:

     Net Savings = Initial contract cost - (revised contract cost + CICP
                    development cost + CICP implementation cost)

     The CICP implementation cost should include, when appropriate,
consultant's fee for reviewing and redesigning the changes.  However,
costs for processing the CICP incurred by the grantee, State and EPA are
excluded.

     The contractor's cost for developing the CICP is limited to that
directly associated with the preparation of the CICP  package.  When
approved, such costs will be reimbursed to the contractor.  However,
any costs which cannot be satisfactorily substantiated will be rejected
and will not be subject to reimbursement.

Sharing Formula

     a.   when the total  net savings based on the computation above is
          $1 million or less, the contractor will  receive 50% of the
          saving
-------
b.   when the total  cumulative net savings exceed $1  million,  the
     contractor's share will  be computed based on the following
     formula:

     y  =  .2x + 300,000

     where:

          y = contractor's share in dollars
          x = total  net saving in dollars

     For example, if the total net saving is  $3.572 million  --

          y  = .2($3,572,000) + 300,000

             =  $1,014,400
-------
-------
     5    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                              JAN   8 1979
                                                           OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                          HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                               Construction Grants
MEMORANDUM                                     Program Requirements Memorandum
                                               PRM No. 79-6
Subject:  Priority List Guidance for the Development and Management
          of FY 1980 State Project Priority Lists

From:  fl  John T.  Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
     jjl/^or Water Program Operations (WH-546)

To:       Regional Administrators


PURPOSE

     This memorandum sets forth the policy for development and management
of FY 1980 States  project priority list that is  required to be submitted
under Sections 106, 216 and 305 of the Clean Water Act (Act).   This
policy statement includes guidance for implementing the new provisions
of the Act and the 1978 revision to the Construction Grant Regulations.

DISCUSSION

     The recently  enacted Clean Water Act and the revised Construction
Grant regulations  which were published on September 27, 1978,  make it
necessary to modify many of the processes and procedures used  for  the
development and management of State priority lists.  Some change was
required for development of the FY 1979 priority list and many States
are both familiar  with and presently incorporating other changes that
are required by the newly revised regulation.

     In revising the priority system and preparing the FY 80 project
priority list, it  is expected that the States will comply fully with the
revised Construction Grant Regulations.  The Congress was clear in its
mandate that the State project priority list be  made a useful  and
useable management tool.  This can only be accomplished through the
timely submission  of valid and complete information.
-------
                                   -2-

     Following revision,  the State priority system must be submitted  to
the Regional  Administrator for review and approval.   The Regional
Administrator will  issue written notification that the system is  designed
to obtain compliance with the enforceable requirements of the Act.

     The following  guidance supersedes  the requirements listed in  PRM
78-13.  All of the  new regulatory requirements that must be incorporated
into the State priority system prior to preparing  the FY 80 project
priority lists are  discussed in this guidance.  The Regions should
insure that this guidance is understood by the States and closely
coordinate the review processes so that the program can move expeditiously
without disruption.
POLICY
     1.   Submission and review of priority lists.

          Under Section 35.563, the State must submit a preliminary
     project priority list to the Regional Administrator by May 1  of
     each year for review.  A final project priority list must be  submitted
     for review by the Regional Administrator before July 15.   The
     Regional Administrator will review the final  State project priority
     list within 30 days of submission to ensure compliance with the
     approved State priority system and this policy memorandum.  Question-
     able projects should be identified during this 30 day period.  No
     priority list is to be accepted as final by the Region until  all  of
     the required information has been received for each project and the
     public participation requirements have been met (see S35.915(d) and
     35.915(e).  The Regional Administrator must notify the State  in
     writing upon final acceptance of the priority list.  No project may
     be funded from the State priority list until  the Regional Administrator
     has issued the written notification of acceptance and the accepted
     list has been entered into the Grants Information Control System
     (GICS).

          After receipt, the preliminary State priority list should be
     entered into GICS.  The GICS files should be updated as changes and
     modifications are made.  The final list is to be generated from the
     GICS file.  Following acceptance by the Regional Administrator, the
     information contained in the GICS file will be considered as  the
     official list for funding and management purposes.

     2.   Key Elements.

          A.  State project priority system -  a program and action plan
     that describes the methodology used to rate and rank projects that
     are considered eligible for assistance.  The system should set
     forth  the administrative, management, and public participation
     procedures required to develop and revise the State project priority
-------
                              -3-

list.  The system should be clear in its stated priority determinants,
incorporate reasonably understandable mathematical  computation
processes and be used consistently for rating all  projects included
on the State project priority list especially to satisfy the public
participation requirements of 40 CFR 25.

     B.  State project priority list - a listing of projects in
order of priority for which Federal assistance is  expected during a
five-year planning period starting with the beginning of the next
fiscal year.  This list must be consistent with the most recently
published Needs Survey inventory (see S35.915(b)).   The list will
include both a fundable and planning portion.  The two portions of
the list are contiguous and distinguished only by  an imaginary
funding line drawn immediately below the last project that is
planned for funding with available funds during the first year of
the five-year period.

     C.  Project rating criteria - Under S35.915(a)(l), the State
must base its project priority system on the severity of the pol-
lution problem, the existing population affected by the project,
and the need for preservation of high quality waters.  At the
State's option, projects may be rated by specific  needs categories.
The State may give additional priority points for  Step 2, Step 3
and combined Step 2+3 projects which meet the innovative and alter-
native technology guidelines as stated in S 35.915(a)(l)(iii) of
the Construction Grant Regulations. The State may  also consider the
needs of small and/or rural communities. Other criteria, consistent
with these listed, may be considered.  The State may not consider
the project area's development needs, economic factors, the geo-
graphical region within the State, or future population growth
projections.

     In addition to the above, the Agency has determined that a
rigorous review is necessary for projects designed for treatment
more stringent that secondary. The Appropriations  Conference Com-
mittee agreed that grant funds may be used for projects providing
greater than secondary only if the incremental cost of the advanced
treatment is $1 million or less, or if the Administrator personally
determines that advanced treatment is required and will result in
significant water quality and public health improvements. The
projects or portions of projects which do not meet these criteria
should be given a low priority and deferred.  Detailed guidance
implementing these requirements is in preparation.
-------
                              -4-

D.  Project ranking - A numerical  ordering  of projects  that may be
eligible for funding under the Clean Water  Act.   This  ranking  is
determined by the State project priority rating  system.   The rating
criteria used to establish the project ranking must be  clearly
delineated in the approved State priority system and applied
consistently to all projects included on the priority  list.

E.  Fundable portion - that portion of the  priority list which
includes projects scheduled for award of grant assistance during
the first year (funding year) of the five-year planning period.
The total expected grant assistance for all projects included in
the fundable portion of the list need not exceed the total  funds
expected to be available during the year less all applicable
reserves.  The fundable portion of the list may  not necessarily
contain a sufficient number of projects to  use all available funds.
The projects scheduled for funding beyond the current  fiscal year
constitute the planning portion of the priority  list.

F.  Planning portion - that portion of the  State priority
list containing all of the projects outside the  fundable portion of
the list that may, under anticipated allotment levels,  receive
funding during the five-year planning period. At the  States option,
projects may be included beyond the five-year planning  period.  As
a minimum, this list must include:

          (i)  All future Step 3 projects that will be generated
     from currently active Step 2 projects  or Step 2 projects that
     are included on the list, where it is  expected that the associated
     Step 3 grant will be awarded within the five-year period.

          (ii) All future Step 2 and Step 3 projects that will be
     generated from completed or currently  active Step 1 projects
     or Step 1 projects that are included on the fundable list,
     where it is expected that the associated Step 2 or Step 3
     grant(s) "will be awarded within the five-year period.

          (iii) All Step 1 projects anticipated  to be  funded
     during the second year of the five-year planning  period.

3.  Funding assumptions.

     Guidance for making funding assumptions that are necessary for
development of the five-year planning list  will  be issued immediately
upon approval and release of the President's Budget, expected
January 20, 1979.  Adjustments may be made  annually as actual
appropriations are determined.
-------
                              -5-

4.  Obligation of funds.

     Allotted funds may be obligated at any time during the funding
year, beginning on the first day of the fiscal  year or at such time
that the Regional Administrator accepts the States project priority
list and it is entered into GICS in its final  form, whichever is
later.  No grant(s) may be made after the last day of any fiscal
year in the absence of a revised and updated priority list that has
been submitted, reviewed and accepted as provided in S35.915(e).

5.  Required priority list information.

     The following information is required for all projects on the
State project priority list, except as otherwise noted.  The
Grants Information Control System (GICS) transaction number is
included in parentheses for clarity after each listing.  The Region
should refer to the GICS data element dictionary for the precise
definition of each element.

o    State assigned EPA project number (TN 01,  54, 03).

o    Legal name and address of applicant if known (TN 12, 51,
     14, 52).

o    Short project name or description (TN 20).

o    Priority rating and rank of each project,  based on current
     priority system (TN H8, 59).

o    Project step number (TN 87).

o    Relevant Needs authority/facility number (TN 32).  This
     is a unique number assigned in connection with the Needs
     Survey which identifies the facility and the cognizant WWT
     authority.  If an authority/facility number has not been
     assigned, enter "NO NUMBER".  If multiple facilities are
     applicable within a single authority, enter the first six
     positions followed by "XXX".  If multiple authorities exist,
     then enter the word "MULTIPLES" instead of the nine digit
     authority facility number.

o    Parent project number (i.e., EPA project number for the
     nredecessor project) (TN B2).

o    For Step 2, 3, or 2+3 projects, code indicating an alter-
     native system for small community (TN 33).   Enter "D" if the
     project is for a highly dispersed section of a larger community
-------
                              -6-

     or "R"  if the project is  for  a  rural  community with  a  population
     of 3,500 or less.   This  requirement  does  not  apply to  any
     State in which the reserve is not mandatory or which has not
     voluntarily established  an appropriate  set  aside  (see
     §35.915 (e)).

o    For Step 2, 3, or 2+3 projects, that amount (if any) of
     the eligible cost to apply to innovative  processes (TN Y7)  and
     alternative techniques (TN Y8). This information  is  necessary
     to determine utilization of the I/A  reserve.

o    The date that the project is  expected to  be certified  by State
     to EPA for funding (TN A5).  This date  can  be used to  further
     define whether or not the project is on the fundable or
     planning portion of the  priority list.

o    For Step 3 or 2+3 projects, the total eligible cost  sub-
     divided by Needs Categories (TN YO,  Yl, Y2, Y3, Y4,  Y5, Y6).
     Transactions numbered YO through Y6  are reserved  for the cost
     information associated with needs categories  I,  II,  IIIA,
     IIIB, IVA, IVB and V respectively.  This  information is
     required for all projects on the fundable list.   The infor-
     mation concerning categories IIIB, IVA, IVB and V is required.
     At the option of the State, however, the aggregate amount  for
     projects or portions of  projects in  these later four categories
     can be stored in data element Y3.

o    Total eligible cost of the project (TN  29).

o    Estimated EPA assistance (TN H7). This  estimate  should include
     only the portion fundable at 75 percent of the eligible cost
     of the project.  Expected grant increase amounts  for innovative
     or alternative processes and techniques should not be  included.

o    Enforceable requirement to be satisfied by this  project  (TN
     Zl).  The enforceable requirements must be described by one of
     the following combinations of codes.  Transaction number Zl is
     a two position data field.  The first position of this field
     must include one of the  four alphabetic characters  as  follows:

          A -- Project satisfies the conditions or limitations
               of a 402 or 404 permit which, if violated, could
               result in the issuance of a compliance  order or
               initiation of a civil or criminal action  under
               Section 309 of the Clean Water Act. (Include primary
               permit number in area reserved for  TN  C2).
-------
                              -7-

          B -- Permit has not been issued but project satisfies
               a condition or limitation which would be included in
               the permit when issued.

          C -- Permit is not applicable but project satisfies
               a requirement anticipated to be necessary to meet
               applicable criteria for best practicable waste
               treatment technology (BPWTT).

          D -- Project does not meet an enforceable require-
               ment of the Act.

     The second position of TN Zl  is to be used to further describe
     the project.  The two following alphabetic characters are
     included for this purpose:

          Y -- The project in its  entirety satisfies the enforceable
               requirements of the Act for the condition stated in
               the preceding character position.

          P — Portions of the project do not satisfy the enforceable
               requirements of the condition stated in the preceding
               character position.

6.  Project bypass.

     Although readiness for funding may not be used as a priority
criterion for rating projects, the ability to bypass projects not
yet ready to proceed according to schedule is an integral part of
priority list management.  Projects initially scheduled for funding
but which are determined by the State and agreed to by the Regions
as not ready for funding before the end of the fundable year may be
bypassed in favor of the highest ranking project included on the
planning portion of the list as long as the approved priority
system has such a procedure to bypass and, under specific conditions,
reinstate the bypassed project(s).

     Before bypassing any project, the State must notify the
applicant and NPDES authorities.  The State must then advise EPA
that the bypassed project(s) will  not be ready during the funding
period. The State must also assure that the desired bypass is in
full conformance with all State and local regulatory requirements.
Projects that are bypassed should retain their relative priority
rating for possible reinstatement or consideration on future funding
lists.  Projects that are bypassed will be replaced by the highest
ranking priority projects which meet the enforceable requirements
of the Act.  Project applicants that are bypassed because they are
-------
                             -8-

not ready to proceed must be promptly notified.  A project must be
reinstated if it is subsequently determined that it can be made
ready for funding during the fundable year and uncommitted funds
are available to fully fund the project.   Projects that are considered
for funding through the bypass  process must have previously met all
public participation requirements.

7.  Public participation.

     Before the State submits its annual  project priority list to
the Regional Administrator for review, the State shall  insure that
adequate public participation has taken place as required by
S35.915(d).  A public hearing must be held to discuss the proposed
State priority list and any revisions that were made to the State
priority system.  This public hearing may be conducted jointly with
any regular public meeting of the State agency providing that the
public (statewide) receive adequate and timely notice of the meeting
including an opportunity to obtain and review a copy of the proposed
priority list.  Attendees at the meeting must be allowed to express
their views concerning the list.  The State priority system must
describe the public participation policy and procedures which are
applicable.  The States policy must conform to the requirements of
40 CFR 25.

8.  Priority list update.

     Because of the definition of the fundable list (adopted in
FY 79) the target certification dates and estimated grant amount
for projects on the fundable and planning portions of the list must
be kept current at all times.  At a minimum, a complete review of
the priority list, including the planning portion, should be performed
on a quarterly basis.  Any changes to the list should immediately
be entered into GIGS.  Regions should assure that the bypass provisions
and public participation requirements have been met whenever changes
are made to the priority lists.

9.   25% Provision for Projects in Categories IIIB (Sewer System
     Replacement or Major Rehabilitation), IVA (New Collectors
     and Appurtenances)., IVB (New Interceptors and Appurtenamces),
     and V (Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows).

     All projects or parts of projects on the fundable list which
are in these categories will be reviewed by the Regional Administrator
to determine if they meet the enforceable requirements of the Act.
Projects which meet the  enforceable requirements are acceptable on
the priority list.  Projects in those categories that do not meet
an enforceable requirement will be further examined under the
S35.915(g)(2).  This review process will continue until the aggregate
of projects in these categories total not more than 25 percent of
-------
                              -9-

the current year allotment for each State.   Projects or portions  of
projects which would require use of funds beyond the 25 percent
level may be removed in accordance with S35.915(g)(l).

10.  Management of priority list reserves that are subject to
     reallotment if not used for their intended purpose.

     Regions should assure that sufficient projects appear on the
fundable list to fully utilize the reserve for innovative and
alternative technology grant increases and the reserve for al-
ternative systems for small communities before these funds are lost
to reallotment.  To accomplish this objective, the State may assign
a higher priority to those Step 2, Step 3 and combined Step 2+3
project utilizing processes arid techniques meeting the innovative
and alternative guidelines (see S35.915(a)(l)(iii)). Under §35.915-
l(e), the size of community may also be used to establish a higher
priority for alternative systems for small community projects in
order to preclude any potential loss of the reserved funds.  When
it is determined that a sufficient number of projects are not
included to fully use these reserves, the State should be so
advised.

11.  Priority list/Needs survey relationship.

     The State project priority list should be derived from and be
consistent with the most recently published State Needs Inventory
prepared in accordance with Section 516(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Water
Act.  The "Relevant Needs Authority/Facility Number" mentioned in
item 5 above provides the direct linkage between the priority list
and the Needs Survey.

12.  Priority list/WQM plans relationship.

     In developing its annual priority list, the State must
consider the construction grant needs and priorities set forth in
certified and approved State and areawide water quality management
(WQM) plans as provided in Sections 35.915(a) and 35.915(c)(l).  In
the information about the priority list which the State circulates
before the public hearing required by S35.915(d), the State shall
indicate how it considered such WQM information.  Information
regarding the projects consistency with approved water quality
management plans must be provided as part of the priority list
submission.  Where plans have not been approved a statement should
be provided to indicate why the project appears on the priority
list.
-------
                                   -10-

     13.   Priority List/Financial  Management System Relationship.

          The Financial  Management System (FMS)  provides  for the
     recording and reporting of construction grant obligations,  outlays
     and  certain related balances  by Source of Funds,  Program Element/
     Account Number and  other interest categories.  The Program  Element/
     Account Numbers relate specifically to year of fund appropriation
     accounting and will .be used to track the set-aside residuals.   Two
     accounts have been  established as of this time, one for State
     Management Assistance (ABA 880) and the other for Innovative processes
     (ABA 881) funds. Account Number ABA 881 will be used only  for
     tracking the 1/2 of 1 percent reserve (see §35.915-1(b)).   Two
     additional accounts are presently planned to provide for alternative
     technology and rural or small community set-asides.   The account
     numbers and additional detail will  be provided by the Financial
     Systems Branch.

          The accounting information that is available from FMS  is  not
     a duplication of data contained in GICS elements 19, 31, Y7 and Y8.
     The  data in the GICS elements are estimates made at the time of
     preparing the State project priority list.  The data in the FMS
     account fields represents actual obligation made at time of project
     grant award.  Both  sources of information, FMS and GICS, will  be
     used to track and determine availability of funds for each  of the
     regulatory funding  set-aside and reserve categories.
ASSISTANCE

     The Priorities and Needs Assessment Branch has prepared Cross
Reference Index listing sorted by Facility Name, GICS Number, Needs
Number and NPDES Number.  Upon completion in October, 1978, these listings
were forwarded to the Regions for use in preparing and reviewing the
FY 79 State priority list.  In addition, the Branch is prepared to
assist the Regions and/or States where possible in preparing the required
Priority lists.  If it becomes apparent that any State is experiencing
difficulty in making either the revisions to their Priority System or
timely preparation of the FY 80 project priority list, please advise me
or James A. Chamblee.  It is imperative that the priority list development
be well managed for FY 1980 and beyond.  We shall be reluctant to concur
with any deviations in the future which extends a priority list beyond
the end of a fiscal year.

     Please direct questions concerning this program guidance memorandum
to James Chamblee or Joseph Easley.  They may be reached by FTS 426-
4443.
                                                 *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 0-281-147/3
-------
     \
     I   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

SUBJECT:  Grant Funding of Projects Requiring  Treatment
          More Strmgenlf tjian Secondary                  Construction Grants
               X^v l /K>^f'*7                        Program Requirements Memorandum
FROM:     Thomas jt.C]ogling f                         PRM  #79-7
          Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management (WH-556)

TO:       Water Division Directors,
          Regions \-\
                                                    MAH 9

Purpose

     This memorandum sets forth Agency policy  and procedures for Headquarters
and regional  review of wastewater treatment projects designed  to meet
effluent requirements  more stringent than secondary treatment.   It also
groups such projects into two categories—advanced secondary treatment
(AST) and advanced waste treatment (AWT) and defines these terms.   In
addition, this memorandum provides a standard  for reviewing the  financial
impact of advanced projects upon small communities.

     We anticipate that the review process will  result in the  development
of improved national  guidance on wasteload allocations and the water
quality standards-setting process.  Thus, these review requirements will
be supplemented in the future by such guidance.

Discussion

     The Agency has in the past expressed growing concern with the high
cost and energy consumption of publicly-owned  treatment works  in many
communities.   These high costs and energy demands are frequently attribu-
table to optimistic projections of anticipated growth or sophisticated
extra unit processes.   Funding facilities with these conditions  with
limited grant funds results in fewer projects  being funded overall,
delay in accomplishing basic secondary treatment goals, and, particularly
in smaller communities, the financial burden of high operation and
maintenance as well as construction costs.

     Consequently, the Agency has to take a hard look at the number and
types of projects that are planned for treatment more stringent  than
secondary to achieve the Clean Water Act goals.   Regions and States are
reminded in this connection of the checklist procedure for all Step 2
and Step 3 projects that was instituted in the June 8, 1978, joint memo
from Rhett/Davis.  The checklist procedure and the independent justifica-
tion described in the  following sections are meant to supplement,  not
replace, the review of cost-effectiveness and  appropriateness  of facility
design normally given  to projects.
-------
     In action approving the FY  79 appropriation  for  the  Construction
Grants Program, the Appropriations Conference Committee agreed  "that
grant funds may be used for construction of  new facilities  providing
treatment greater than secondary...only if  the incremental  cost of  the
advanced treatment is $1 million or less, or if the Administrator person-
ally determines that advanced treatment is  required and will definitely
result in significant water quality and public health improvements."

     All advanced projects with  an incremental capital cost over $1
million that are recommended for funding by the regions or  States must
be reviewed at EPA Headquarters  after completion  of basic facility  plan
review and collection of supplementary materials  by the regions or
States.  All other projects more stringent  than secondary but with  an
incremental capital cost of $1 million or less shall  receive a  comparably
intensive review at the regional/State level.

     Clarification is needed for terminology used in  review of  projects.
The Agency has defined secondary treatment  as a treatment level meeting
effluent limitations for Biochemical  Oxygen Demand (BOD)  and Suspended
Solids (SS) of 30/30 mg/1 on a maximum monthly average basis or 85  percent
removal of these parameters, whichever is more stringent.  The  group of
projects requiring treatment more stringent than  secondary  can  be divided
into two groups: advanced secondary treatment (AST) and AWT.

     To arrive at the above distinctions the Agency reviewed about  6,300
projects shown in the 1976 Needs Survey as  requiring  treatment  more
stringent than secondary.  Of the 6,300, 1,200 projects as  yet  unbuilt
will be required to meet very stringent levels of treatment of  BOD  less
than 10 mg/1 and/or nitrogen removal.  Additional analysis  by  the Agency
showed distinct cost increases and shifts to more sophisticated technology
to achieve these levels.  Therefore, the popularized  term "AWT" should
only be used to refer to treatment levels providing for maximum monthly
average BOD/SS less than 10 mg/1 and/or total nitrogen removal  of greater
than 50 percent.  ("Total Nitrogen removal" = TKN plus nitrite+nitrate).
These  projects are subject to especially intensive review and  require
independent justification.  Other projects  requiring  treatment  more
stringent than secondary but not to AWT levels can be referred  to as
"advanced secondary treatment."   Review procedures for these projects
are somewhat less rigorous.

     A treatment facility designed to meet effluent limitations of
BOD/SS 30/30 mg/1 or 85 percent removal with just disinfection  processes
shall  be considered as a secondary rather than advanced  secondary  treatment
facility for purposes of this PRM.  Other definitions of  secondary
treatment (e.g., 25/30 or 20/20) may be used if  included  in approved
State  criteria, if secondary treatment technologies would be used  to
achieve these  levels, and if any extra costs (present worth)  beyond
those  for meeting 30/30 limits would be a very small  percentage of  the
present worth  costs of the entire treatment facility. Secondary treatment
facilities with just phosphorus removal add-ons with  a capital  cost more
-------
than $1 million and derived from the international  agreement  for  the
Great Lakes basin shall  be considered advanced  secondary,  but not subject
to Headquarters review.

     The policy of the Agency is to encourage land  treatment  facilities
and other alternative technologies which provide  for  reuse of wastewater
or recycling of nutrients and other pollutants.   Such projects usually
afford water quality enhancement beyond  the minimum established in
permits, and water management benefits as well.   Accordingly, where land
treatment or other reuse/recycling technologies are designed  to meet
effluent limitations more stringent than secondary, the procedures
herein would allow such projects to proceed without special review
unless their costs were found to be excessive.  Excessive  costs are
defined as those which would exceed the  high cost criterion presented in
section 3 of this memorandum or the average present worth  costs of AST
and AWT projects (roughly estimated at 25 percent above secondary for
the former category and 50 percent for the latter).

     Some AWT projects,  particularly those featuring  waste stabilization
ponds plus filtration, may not cost more than AST projects.   Thus, AWT
projects with a present worth cost not exceeding  that for  secondary
treatment by more than 25 percent may be reviewed under procedures
established herein for AST projects.

     The cost of treatment - secondary as well  as more stringent  than
secondary - can have severe local  fiscal impacts.  The latest Title II
regulations give more emphasis to alternative or  individual systems and
require a cost-effectiveness analysis that could  result in lower  project
costs, especially to small communities.   This emphasis, along with
increased review, should help ensure that projects  with excessive capacity
for growth or unnecessarily designed to  meet effluent requirements more
stringent than secondary, with capital or operations  and maintenance
costs that may place an intolerable financial burden  upon  the community,
do not receive grant funds.

     Additional guidance on coordination of reviews of advanced treatment
projects with the interim municipal enforcement policy will be developed
in conjunction with the EPA Office of Water Enforcement.

Policy

     The Agency will conduct a rigorous  review of projects designed for
treatment more stringent than secondary.  The incremental  additional
capital costs of a project that are attributable  to effluent  limitations
or water quality requirements more stringent than secondary must  be
based on a justification showing significant receiving water  quality
improvement and mitigation of public health problems  where they exist.
In addition, projects requiring treatment more stringent than secondary
should be evaluated for their financial  impact upon the community.
Also, the inflationary costs for delay should be  considered in project
-------
reviews.  The regions will  review all  such projects.   They will  decide
how to proceed in accordance with this PRM for projects  having  incremental
costs beyond secondary of $1 million or less,  and  for other projects
explicitly designated in this PRM for  final regional  decision.   Headquarters
review and decision on how to proceed  will follow  preliminary regional
review for the remaining projects with incremental  capital costs beyond
secondary greater than $1 million.

     For projects with an incremental  cost of  $1 million or less, the
review is a delegable function under the 205(g) delegation agreements.
For projects with an incremental  cost  of greater than $1 million, States
may do the initial review but regions  must concur  with the State's
conclusions before transmitting the project to Headquarters.

     Beginning in FY 1980, the delegation of that  group  of project
reviews now conducted by Headquarters  to those regional  offices  demon-
strating capability to perform such reviews well will be considered.

     Review of the projects should proceed as  outlined below:

Procedure

     Preliminary steps in the review should be 1)  determination  of the
explicit effluent requirements for the project and identification as
secondary, advanced secondary or  AWT,  and 2) determination of incremental
capital cost of advanced treatment as  more or  less than  $1 million.

1.  Review of Projects Identified as AST

     If a project is identified as having to meet  advanced secondary
treatment standards (more stringent than secondary but not AWT), the
checklist should be used to review the project.

     For project approval, the review must determine that:

     1.   seasonal operation has  been  evaluated;

     2.   the land treatment alternative has been  considered; and

     3.   the advanced secondary portions of the  project will definitely
          result in significant water  quality improvements and mitigation
          of public health problems where they exist.

     Reviews of project costs and local financial  impacts must  comply
with section 3.  If the checklist review demonstrates that the  required
level of treatment is not well justified, Federal  funding of all or part
of the project should be postponed until the project is  redesigned (if
necessary) or the level of treatment is fully justified.
-------
     If the project involves land treatment or other innovative/alternative
technologies featuring wastewater reuse or recycling of pollutants,  does
not exceed the high cost criterion given in section 3 below and  its
incremental present worth cost does not exceed 25 percent of the cost of
a new secondary treatment plant, then the project should proceed without
further review.  If the project does exceed the high cost or present
worth criteria, the procedures prescribed herein for AST projects shall
apply.

     a.   Incremental  cost of AST is $1 million or less.

     Regions should follow the criteria and procedures given above.   The
decision will be made at the regional level.

     b.   Incremental  cost of AST is greater  than $1 million.

     If, after the above review, the Regional  Administrator wants to
proceed with funding,  the project must receive approval  from the
Administrator in EPA Headquarters.  The following material  should be
sent to the Office of Water Program Operations: attention Michael B.
Cook, USEPA, Facility  Requirements Division (WH 595), 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C.  20460, telephone (202)  426-9404, for final
review and approval:

          (1) facility plan (draft or final)  including supporting
documentation on alternatives considered with region's review and comments;
          (2) completed checklist with detailed answers to supplement
checked responses;
          (3) region's evaluation of water quality and public health
benefits that will result from advanced secondary treatment based upon
data submitted concerning the project;
          (4) region's evaluation of seasonal  operation of AST portion
of project; and
          (5) the major documents summarizing the establishment  of water
quality standards and  effluent limitations for the project.

     Headquarters has  developed procedures for the internal  review of
advanced secondary projects which rely heavily upon regional/State
evaluations.  Advanced secondary projects without complex issues are
expected to be reviewed within 25 working days of receipt of the project
at Headquarters.

2.  Review of Projects Identified as AWT

     Regions should assist grantees and the State in developing  the  data
needed for an independent justification of AWT.  This should include at
a minimum:

          (1) facility plan (draft or final)  and supporting  documents,
particularly on alternatives considered with  region's review and comments.
-------
          (2)  completed checklist with detailed  answers  to  supplement
checked responses;
          (3)  region's evaluation of water quality  and public  health
benefits that will result from both secondary  treatment  and  the  additional
treatment beyond secondary based upon data submitted  for the project;
          (4)  the major documents summarizing  the establishment  of  water
quality standards and effluent limitations for the  project;
          (5)  an identification and review of  the need for  each  proposed
unit process included in the proposed treatment facility for meeting the
effluent limitation identified in item (4). Particular  attention should
be given to an assessment of the impact on beneficial uses  of  dropping
one or a few treatment processes (or redesigning one  or  more treatment
processes to provide a lesser degree of treatment)  and the  cost  savings
associated with these options:
          (6)  a detailed review of land treatment and seasonal operation
alternatives;  and
          (7)  if the item 5 and 6 review indicates  a  more cost-effective
option, an estimate for the 20-year planning period of the  capital,
operation and  maintenance, and total present worth  costs of  that option.

     The review of an AWT project must determine whether the project
meets all of the following criteria:

          (1)   The beneficial uses established for  the receiving water
can be attained or, if not, lesser uses can be achieved  when the effluent
limits are met, and industrial sources meet their pretreatment and
permit conditions.  Where Best Management Practices for  nonpoint source
control are required to achieve standards not  now being  attained, these
controls must be in place or part of a draft or an  EPA approved  water
quality management plan.  The differences must be significant  between
water quality and beneficial uses attained or  enhanced by the  proposed
project compared with water quality and uses attainable  from the project
with one or a few treatment processes beyond secondary dropped or modified
and with less stringent effluent limitations reflecting  their  omission
or modification.

          (2)   State laws or requirements or criteria within State  water
quality standards are not more stringent than  the Red Book  criteria
unless fully justified as essential to achieve and  sustain  the beneficial
uses.

     An exception to this criterion may be allowed  if a  project  is
necessary to prevent degradation of the following types  of  "national
resources waters":

     a.   National Parks

     b.   National Wildlife Refuges

     c.   National Seashores

     d.   National Monuments
-------
     e.   National  Marine Sanctuaries

     f.   National  Estuarine Sanctuaries

     Funding necessary to prevent degradation of other waters of national,
rather than regional  or State, importance may be allowed on a case-by-
case basis if both the following conditions are met:

     a.   The water is of truly national, rather than regional  or State
importance.

     b.   Federal  legislation or regulations are directed toward protecting
the specific body of water from degradation.

          (3)  The wasteload allocations or other analysis resulting in
the effluent limitations, along with the assumptions  on which the analysis
is based, are scientifically supported by intensive water quality
surveys or appropriate field investigations conducted on the water
bodies in question, and calibrated and verified models or other technically
sound analyses.

          (4)  The treatment processes are the most cost-effective means
of meeting the prescribed effluent limitations.

          (5)  The community is aware of the project's costs for treatment
and reserve capacity.  Cost information on total capital costs, local
financing, and annual or monthly operating and debt service costs should
be presented at a public hearing as required in PRM 76-3.  Review of
project costs and local financial impacts must comply with section 3.

          (6)  Land treatment has been fully evaluated.

     If the above conditions are not met, either the  entire project or
its AWT elements (if they can be separated out) should not be funded
pending further action.

     Federal funding of all or the unjustified part of the project
should be postponed until the project (if necessary)  is redesigned or
the level of treatment is fully justified.  The advanced wastewater
treatment increment of the project that is not justified should not be
funded unless and until the project will result in significant water
quality and public health improvements.

     Should the review show that AWT cannot be justified, but that some
treatment greater than secondary can be justified under the rules for
review of AST projects, then the justified portion should be funded.
The project should be segmented to permit funding of  the justified
portion and that section should be designed, if practicable, to allow
addition of the other segment at a later date after further analyses.
-------
                                   8

     Projects may be excepted from the AWT review  procedures under  the
following circumstances:

     (1)  Project features land  treatment or  other innovative/alternative
technologies affording wastewater reuse or recycling  of  pollutants  where
the project's cost would  not exceed the high  cost  criterion described in
section 3.  Also, the incremental present worth  cost  of  such a  project
must not exceed 50 percent of the present worth  cost  of  a  new secondary
treatment project.  If these criteria are met, the project may  proceed
without further review.

     (2)  The AWT project's incremental present  worth cost does not
exceed 25 percent of the  present worth cost of a new  secondary  treatment
facility.  Project review must,  nevertheless, conform with AST  review
procedures.

     a. Incremental cost  of AWT  is $1 million or less.

     Regions should follow the criteria and procedures given above. The
decision will be made at  the regional level.

     b. Incremental capital cost of AWT is greater than  $1 million.

     If the Regional Administrator is satisfied  that  the project meets
all of the required criteria and wants to proceed  with funding, the
project must receive approval from the Administrator  in  EPA Headquaters.
The region shall furnish  a report covering all of  the criteria  listed in
section 2 and forward each of the documents listed in section 2 to  the
Office of Water Program Operations: attention Michael B.  Cook,  Director,
Facility Requirements Division (WH 595), United  States Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M  Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.   20460, telephone
(202)426-9404, as soon as possible after the  need  for Headquarters
review is identified.

     Headquarters has developed  internal procedures for  a task  force
review of complex AST and AWT projects that will review  the major issues
and questions intensively based  upon the material  sent in by regions and
States.  Decisions will be made  on the basis  of  the criteria outlined
above.  It is planned for the Administrator's decision on the project  to
be made within 45 to 60 working  days of receipt  of the project  at Head-
quarters.  This decision will be communicated to the  regions.

3.  Local Financial Impacts

     All projects designed to achieve treatment  more  stringent  than
secondary must be evaluated in terms of financial  impact upon  the community.
This evaluation should supplement the display and  disclosure of financial
information and local costs required of all facility  plans and  described
in PRM 76-3.  Total annual costs to a typical domestic user comprise
both the existing preproject costs and the increase attributable to the
-------
proposed new facilities.  A project shall  be considered  high-cost when
the total average annual cost (debt service, operation and  maintenance,
connection costs) to a domestic user exceeds the following  percentage of
median household incomes:

     1.50  percent when the median income  is under $6,000

     2.00 percent when the median income is $6,000 -  $10,000

     2.50 percent when the median income is over $10,000

     If review shows that a project is high cost, try to determine which
elements of the project are responsible.  Determine whether it is the
treatment processes selected, excessive reserve capacity, new sewer
construction, or other factors in the physical  setting that may cause
excessive costs in either construction or  operation of the  facility.
Work with the grantee and the State to revise the facility  plan or
redesign the project to reduce the costs,  or obtain assistance from the
Fanner's Home Administration (FmHA) or another source with  the local
share.  There is agreement between FmHA, EPA and Economic Development
Administration for all to use the above rule-of-thumb in review of
projects.  Regions should proceed with a project determined to be high
cost under this criterion only after consulting with  the Facility Require-
ments Division in Headquarters.

Implementation

     This policy shall be implemented immediately as  follows.   Regions
shall advise States of the policy of strict review in the regions and
Headquarters of treatment more stringent than secondary  (advanced secondary
and AWT).  They should also be advised of  the Agency's policy not to
fund such projects if not justified.  The  policy should  be  applied to
all projects prepared for Step 2 or 3 funding.
-------
    $    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                              MAY 9   1979
                                                           OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                          HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                              PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
                                              PRM# 79-8
SUBJECT:  Small Wastewater Systems
FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators
          Regions I-X

I.   Purpose

     This memorandum clarifies EPA policy on the funding of privately and
publicly owned small alternative wastewater systems, provides guidelines for
identifying expensive projects and implements the new Federal interagency
agreement for rural wastewater projects.

II.  Discussion

     During the facility planning stage,  alternatives for providing wastewater
treatment systems are explored to determine the most cost-effective method of
treatment.  Review of a sample of approved systems indicates that on-site or
small-flow wastewater treatment systems often have not been considered care-
fully even when such systems are likely to be more cost-effective than
collection and interceptor networks.  Section 201(g)(5) of the Clean Water Act
of 1977, (P.L. 95-217), requires all grant applicants to study fully innovative
and alternative treatment options.

     Both privately owned and publicly owned small alternative wastewater systems
are grant eligible under the Act with specific restrictions and conditions
applicable.  Key terms are defined as follows:

     Small alternative wastewater systems are wastewater conveyance and/or
treatment systems other than conventional systems.  Alternatives include, but are
not limited to: septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems; other on-site
systems including dual systems; small systems serving clusters each consisting
of a small number of households or commercial users, each user with average
annual (seasonal for facility in use for portion of year) dry weather flows of
under 25,000 gallons per day; six-inch and smaller gravity sewers carrying
partially or fully treated wastewater or carrying raw wastewater as a part of
-------
                                -2-

limited conveyance systems serving clusters of households and small
commercial  establishments and pressure and vacuum sewers.  These
alternative sewers are specifically exempted from the collection sewer-
interceptor designations when planned for small  communities and are  not
subject to the collection system policy.   These systems also include
other treatment works which employ alternative technologies listed in
Appendix E, 40 CFR 35, and serve communities of 3,500 population or  less
or the sparsely populated areas of larger communities.

     A conventional system is a collection and treatment system consisting of
minimum-size (6 or 3 inches) or larger gravity collector sewers, normally with
manholes, force mains, pumping and lift stations and interceptors leading to
a central treatment plant employing conventional concepts of treatment as
defined in Section 5, Appendix E, 40 CFR 35.

     Small  alternative wastewater systems may be publicly or privately owned.
Privately owned systems (called "individual systems" in the Act and  40 CFR 35)
may serve only one or more principal residences or small commercial  establish-
ments.  Publicly owned systems may serve one or more users.  Perpetual or
life-of-project easements or other binding convenant running with the land
affording complete access to and control  of wastewater treatment works on
private property are tantamount to ownership of such works.

     High wastewater user costs exceeding $200, $300, and even $500 annually
for households in some communities under 10,000 in population have resulted
from debt retirement costs for new collection systems or from high operation
and maintenance costs of new sophisticated plants.  Extremely high cost
projects have culminated in political upheaval, refusal to connect into or
to pay after connecting into central sewers, violence at public meetings,
requests for injunctions, and filing suits against several parties,  including
EPA.  In most cases, all of the feasible alternatives were not considered in
the cost-effectiveness analysis and some systems were overdesigned by using
inflated population projections and excessive water usage data.  In the past,
it has been difficult during facility plan review to pinpoint those projects
that have severe financial impacts.

     Previous policy and facility planning guidance have called for verification
by the grantee that that community is able to raise the local share.  PRM 76-3
requires the estimated operation and maintenance and debt retirement costs to
each user to be presented in clear, understandable terms at the facility
planning public meeting.  In his letter of December 30, 1976, the Administrator
asked the Regional Administrators to pay careful attention to facility plans
where average local debt retirement costs per household exceed  1 percent of
annual median income and for which local debt retirement costs  plus operation
and maintenance costs exceed 2 percent.

     Guidelines modifying the  1 percent to 2 percent guide have been  included
below to assist in identification of expensive  projects for further analysis.
We are preparing a format with instructions for municipal officials and State
and Federal reviewers to use to determine the size of  project the municipality
can afford using readily available local financial data.
-------
                                 -3-

     Loan and grant programs of several Federal agencies for construction of
wastewater treatment works in the past usually have been handled individually
with little coordination among the agencies.  This has resulted in unnecessary
paperwork, duplication, federally imposed administrative burdens, construction
of inappropriate or too sophisticated, costly facilities, fostering of
development on rural land, and poor structuring of local share debt financing.

     Under the Interagency Agreement for Rural Water and Sewer Projects,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Farmers Home Administration (FmHA),
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
and Community Services Administration (CSA) will coordinate their efforts to
improve the delivery of Federal water and sewer programs to rural and semi-rural
communities.  Major features include:

     °Emphasis on alternatives that may have lower per capita capital and
      operating costs and require less sophisticated technology and skill
      to operate than conventional collection and treatment facilities;

     °A regular exchange of information among the agencies involved in
      funding the project, including meeting periodically and using the
      Federal Regional Councils;

     °The facilitating of application and disbursement of funds for rural
      water and sewer projects and informing communities of the range of
      funding and other assistance available to them;

     °The establishment of a universal data base for national wastewater
      disposal and treatment needs;

     °The more efficient use of the A-95 process of review by clearinghouse
      agencies;

     °Use of the same criteria to evaluate the financial impact of the pro-
      posed system upon the community;

     °Coordination of the review of facility plans between EPA and FmHA and
      use of the plans by FmHA as their feasibility report to the extent
      possible;

     °The demonstration of compliance with Federal requirements under specific
      statutes only once when communities are using funds from more than one
      program with identical compliance requirements.  Where agency regulations
      differ in compliance requirements, agencies will work together to ensure
      individual or coordinated review as appropriate.

     Facility planning in some small communities with unusual or inconsistent
geologic features or other unusual conditions may require house-to-house
investigations to provide basic information vital to an accurate cost-effectiveness
analysis for each particular problem area.  One uniform solution to all
the water pollution problems in a planning area is not likely and may not be
desirable.  This extensive and time-consuming engineering work will normally
-------
                                -4-

result in higher planning costs which are expected to be justified by the
considerable construction and operation and maintenance cost savings of small
systems over conventional collection and treatment works.

     Though house-to-house visits are necessary in some areas, sufficient
augmenting information may be available from the local sanitarian, geologist,
Soil Conservation Service representative or other source to permit preparation
of the cost-effective analysis.  Other sources include aerial photography and
boat-carried leachate-sensing equipment which can be helpful in locating
failing systems.  Detailed engineering investigation, including soil profile
examination, percolation tests, etc., on each and every occupied lot should
rarely be necessary during facility planning.

III. Policy

     A.   Funding of Publicly and Privately Owned Small Alternative Wastewater
          Systems

          1.   Minimum Standards and Conditions

               The Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing the Act
          impose no restrictions on types of sewage treatment systems.  These
          alternative systems are eligible for funding for State approved
          certified projects when the following minimum standards and
          conditions are met:

               a.   For both publicly and privately owned systems, the
                    public body must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 35.918-1
                    (b), (c), (e) through (j); 35.918-2 and 35.918-3.

                    A comprehensive program for regulation and inspection
               of these systems must be established prior to EPA approval
               of the plans and specifications.  Planning for this compre-
               hensive program shall be completed as  part of the facility
               plan.  The program shall include, at a minimum, the
               physical  inspection of all on-site systems in the facility
               planning area every three years with pumpouts and systems
               renovation or replacement as required.  The program shall also
               include, at a minimum, testing of selected existing potable
               water wells on an annual basis.  Where a substantial number
               of on-site systems exist, if necessary, appropriate
               additional monitoring of the aquifer(s) in the facility
               planning  area shall be provided.

                    For  privately owned systems the applicant must demonstrate
               in the facility plan that the  solution chosen  is cost-effective
               and selected  in accordance with the cost-effectiveness
               guidelines for the Construction Program, (Appendix A,
               40 CFR Part 35).  These  systems are not eligible for a
               15 percent cost preference for the alternative and innovative
               processes and techniques in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
               Publicly  owned systems,  however, are eligible  for  the  15  percent
               cost preference.
-------
                           -5-


     b.    In addition to the conditions in paragraph A.I,  privately
          owned systems must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 35.918-1(a)
          and (d) and the following:

          (1)  Provide facilities only for principal residences,
               (see 40 CFR 35.918(a)(2))  and small commercial
               establishments (i.e.,  those with annual  or  seasonal,
               if not operated throughout the year, dry weather flows
               of less than 25,000 gpd and more than one user
               equivalent per day; e.g. 300 gpd).   Not included
               are second homes, vacation or recreation residences;

          (2)  Require commercial users to pay back the Federal
               share of the cost of construction with no moratorium
               during the industrial  cost recovery study.   The
               25,000 gpd exemption does  not apply for those
               commercial establishments;

          (3)  Treat nonprofit and non-governmental institutional
               entities such as churches, schools, hospitals and
               charitable organizations,  for purposes of this special
               authority, generally the same as small commercial
               establishments.


2.   Other Eligible and Ineligible Costs

     In  addition to the costs identified  in the Construction Grants
Regulations, 40 CFR 35.918-2, the following costs are also grant
eligible:

     (a)  Vehicles and associated capital equipment required for
          servicing of the systems such as septage pumping trucks
          and/or dewatered residue haul vehicles.

          (1)  Vehicles purchased under the grant must have as
               their sole purpose, the transportation of liquid or
               dewatered wastes from the  collection point
               (e.g., holding tanks,  sludge-drying beds) to the
               treatment or disposal  facility.  (Other mobile
               equipment is allowable for grant participation as
               provided for on pages  VII-12 and 13, "Handbook of
               Procedures, Construction Grants Program for Municipal
               Wastewater Treatment Works.")

          (2)  If vehicles or equipment are purchased the
               grantee must maintain  property accountability in
               accordance with OMB Circular A-102 and 40 CFR 30.810.
-------
                       -6-

     (b)  Septage treatment plants (eligible for 85 percent
          grant funding as part of an alternative system).

     (c)  Planning for establishment of small  alternative
          wastewater systems management districts, including public
          hearings to discuss district formation.  The "mechanics"  of
          establishing the districts such as legal and other costs  for
          drafting of ordinances and regulations, elections, etc.,  are
          a normal function of government and are not grant eligible,
          (Construction Grants Program Handbook of Procedures, VI1-6).

     (d)  Rehabilitation, repair or replacement of small  alternative
          wastewater systems as provided for by 40 CFR 35.908(c).

3.   Grant Funding of Small Alternative Wastewater Systems

     Small alternative wastewater systems are eligible for  85 percent
grants; 75 percent of the Federal grant may be funded from  the
4 percent set-aside.  The 10 percent grant increase must be funded
from the 2 percent set-aside (3 percent in FY 1981).  The 10 percent
grant increase can also be applied to small alternative wastewater
systems where 4 percent set-aside funds are not available (i.e.,
in States where there is  no 4 percent set aside or States where
4 percent set-aside funds have been depleted).

4.   Use of Prefabricated or Preconstructed Treatment Components

     The use of prefabricated or preconstructed treatment components
such as septic tanks, grinder pump/tank units, etc., normally is
more economical than construction in place and should be carefully
considered.  In the case of very small systems, prefabricated or
preconstructed units should in most instances be the most cost-
effective.  For somewhat larger systems of standard design,
prefabricated or preconstructed units may also be cost-effective and
should  be carefully considered in the facility plan.

5.   Useful Life of Small Alternative Wastewater Systems

     Whenever conditions permit, these alternative treatment works
including soil absorption systems, shall be designed to ensure a
minimum useful life of twenty years.

6.   Comparison of Small  Alternative Wastewater Systems with
     Collection Systems  in Cost-Effective Analysis

     The present worth of small alternative wastewater systems for
future  development permitted by the cost-effectiveness guidelines,
(40 CFR 35, Appendix A) may be compared with the costs of alternative
and conventional collection systems for the same planning area.  In
each instance both eligible and  ineligible costs  shall be considered
including service line costs from residence to collector, connection
fees and service to the  on-site units.
-------
                                 -7-

IV.  Determination of the Economic Impact of the Project

     When total user charges for wastewater treatment services, including
debt service and operation and maintenance, for the average user in the
service area, exceed the following percentages of annual household
median incomes:

          1.50 percent when the median income is under $6,000;
          2.00 percent when the median income is between $6,000-$10,000;
          2.50 percent when the median income is over $10,000.

the projects shall be considered expensive and shall receive further intensive
review to determine, at a minimum:

     1.  the adequacy and accuracy of the cost-effective analysis,
         particularly noting whether all the feasible alternatives
         have been considered and if the cost estimates are reasonable;

     2.  the soundness of financing of the local share, and

     3.  whether the grant applicant has sought out all the sources of
         supplemental funding.

(Costs of an expensive project can sometimes be reduced by additional facility
planning effort, including reduction in scope.)

     A format, instructions and criteria for determination of the financial
capability of the public body to carry the debt load of a new project are being
prepared and will be promulgated at an early date.  This process will be
tailored for the use of municipal authorities and State and EPA reviewing
officials.

V.   Interagency Coordination and Streamlining the Review and Approval of Grants
     or Loans for Construction of Wastewater Treatment Works in Sparsely Populated
     Communities

     A.   Coordination with Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)

          Communities should be encouraged to contact FmHA during the development
     of their facility plans to receive informal comments before the plans are
     finalized and submitted for review.

          Upon receipt of State certified facility plans for communities under
     10,000 population, the Region shall send a copy of each plan to State
     FmHA officials for their review concurrently with regional review.  FmHA
     will provide comments normally within 30 days to the Region on the
     financial capability of the community to carry the project, the structuring
     of the local share debt, the viability of the selected alternative and
     other matters in which FmHA is interested.  The comments are for each
     Regional Administrator's information and appropriate action, if received
     within the 30-day period.  They are not FmHA's official comments to the
     community on its plan.  Close cooperation between FmHA and regional
     reviewers is encouraged.  For States which are delegated final facility
     plan review, the above coordination shall be between the State and State
     FmHA officials.
-------
                               -8-

     B.    Exchange of Information Among  FmHA.  HUD.  EDA.  CSA and  EPA Through
          Joint Meetings

          The agencies shall  meet periodically during  the year using the Federal
     Regional Councils.   Meetings shall  be initiated by  any of these organizations
     and one of these meetings will  take place at least  120 days before the
     beginning of each new fiscal year.   These/meetings  may include:

          1.   Review of  status of  projects being jointly or concurrently
               funded;

          2.   Discussion of future projects in common;

          3.   Exchange of information on current and  new administrative
               or substantive procedures or requirements; and

          4.   Review of  action items such as:

               a.   One year priority or project lists to identify
                    combined funding possibilities;

               b.   Existing project lists to identify overlapping
                    projects or funding; and

               c.   Construction and inspection schedules to identify
                    areas of coordination.

               Regular meetings between respective state-level agencies
are encouraged for similar purposes of 'coordination.

     C.    Encouragement of Alternatives to Conventional  Collection and
          Treatment of Wastewater

          Alternatives to conventional wastewater collection and treatment
     facilities that may have lower per capita capital,  operating and main-
     tenance costs and require less sophisticated technology and skill to
     operate shall be encouraged.

     D.    Provision of Funding and Other Assistance Information to Small Communities

          Regional offices and other sources will provide, on request, information
     on the range of funding and other assistance for rural sewer projects.
     Technical information may be obtained from the Environmental Research
     Information Center (ERIC), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268,  telephone number
     (513) 684-7394, or the Small Wastewater Flows Clearinghouse, West
     Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, telephone number
     (800) 624-8301.
-------
                             -9-


E.   Establishment of a Universal Data Base for National Wastewater Disposal
     and Treatment Needs

     The EPA biennial Needs Survey will be used as the initial data base for
all agencies involved in funding rural facilities.

F.   More Efficient Use of the A-95 Process of Review

     Notification of intent to apply for grant funds submitted to A-95
clearinghouses should indicate the intention to apply for joint or combined
funding and identify the prospective assisting agencies.

     The A-95 agency needs to conduct only one review of the actual project
for each plan of study and Step 1 grant (except for special circumstances)
which will meet the requirements for all agencies involved.

     The use of the A-95 process and Water Quality Management Planning
process under section 208 to identify projects that may be eligible for
funding should be promoted.

     Regions should encourage the clearinghouses to use the A-95 process
to evaluate the rural and urban impact of jointly funded projects.

G.   Acceptance of One-Time Demonstration or Assurance of Compliance with
     Federal Requirements for Jointly Funded Projects

     The Regions and States where responsibility has been delegated should
accept evidence of compliance with requirements of the following when they
apply in an identical manner to the programs of each agency:

     1.   Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies
          Act of 1970;

     2.   Civil Rights Act of 1964; Civil Rights Act of 1968;
          Executive Order No. 11246;

     3.   Davis-Bacon Fair Labor Standards Act;

     4.   The Contract Work Hours Standards Act;

     5.   The Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act;

     6.   The Hatch Act;

     7.   The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972;

     8.   The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974;

     9.   The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended by the
          Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and regulations and
          guidelines issued thereunder;
-------
                                -10-
          10.   The Wild and  Scenic  Rivers  Act  of  1968;
          11.   The Endangered  Species Act  of 1973;
          12.   The Clean Air Act;
          13.   Executive Order No.  11988 on floodplains  management;
          14.   Executive Order No.  11990 on wetlands  protection;
          15.   The National  Historic Preservation Act of 1966,  and
               Executive Order No.  11593;
          16.   The Safe Drinking Water  Act of  1974.
          Further guidance in  this  area will be issued after  detailed  review
     and discussion by all agencies of  regulations  and requirements  imple-
     menting each of the above statutes.
VI.  Implementation
     This policy should be emphasized through  Step  1  preapplication  conferences,
contacts through municipalities and the States and  reviews of Steps  1  and 2
grant applications.  This PRM  is effective for facility plans started  after
May 31, 1979,  except as follows:
     a.   The  determination of economic impact is applicable  to facility
          plans review commencing 90 days  after issuance of this  guidance.
     b.   Review of facility plans  by FmHA should commence on facility
          plans received for review 60  days  after issuance of this  guidance.
     c.   Joint meetings to exchange information  using the Federal  Regional
          Councils should commence  prior  to  May 31, 1979.  At least  one of the
          future meetings should take place  at least 120 days before the
          beginning of each new fiscal  year  that follows.
     d.   The more efficient use of the A-95  review above shall commence
          as soon as practicable, but not later than May 31,  1979.
-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON. D C.  20460
      MAY  \  ^  1979
                                        Program Requirements Memorandum
                                        PRM # 79-9
SUBJECT:  Outlay

FROM:
          3®

ThomasX^ Jorl
for Water and Wi
TO:

PURPOSE
Regional Administrators
instruction Grants Program

,t Administrator
 snt  (WH-556)
     This memorandum sets forth policy on outlay management in the
Environmental Protection Agency's construction grants program.

POLICY

     It is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish
and maintain a comprehensive system of outlay planning and management in
the construction grants program.  Regional Offices will be responsible
for developing realistic outlay estimates, and for meeting approved
outlay plans on a monthly basis.

     In furtherance of this policy, Regional Offices are to pursue a
program of active outlay management, at both the project and the con-
tract levels, for all large construction grants projects designated by
the Regional Administrator.  For all such projects outlay schedules are
to be developed for all major construction and A/E contracts at the time
of contract award.  This requirement replaces the need for the grantee
to submit the proposed payment schedule prior to grant award that is
normally made part of the grant agreement.  For any contracts not
awarded within six months of grant award, the grantee must furnish a
schedule of projected start and completion dates for each contract.  The
method for submitting this information to the Region will be determined
by the Regional Administrator.

     The outlay schedules are to be revised annually by July 1st, for
input into the federal budget process, and whenever actual project
performance strays significantly (-5% or +10%) from the schedule.  Each
project is to be inspected at least quarterly (on a continuing resident
or monthly basis for large or complex projects) to monitor performance
against these schedules, and to resolve problems before they lead to
project delays.
-------
                                  (2)

     To provide the Region with the necessary information for developing
outlay estimates, and to provide a basis for subsequent project/contract
management, the grantee must submit the following information for each
major construction or A/E contract by July 1st of each year:

     o    EPA project identification (grant) number.
     o    Grantee name.

     o    Contract identification (name or number).

     o    Contract award date.

     o    Projected contract completion date.

     o    Total eligible contract amount.

     o    Quarterly payment schedule (75% EPA share) for last quarter of
          current fiscal year and all of the following fiscal year, and
          an annual estimate for the succeeding fiscal year.  (The
          Regional Administrator may request a monthly payment schedule
          for contracts that may have a significant impact on Regional
          outlay projections.)

     o    Other information required by the Regional Administrator for
          effective contract management.

For new contracts awarded after July 1st, or for contract schedules that
must be revised during the year because actual performance differs from
the projection, the grantee should submit, along with the other adminis-
trative information, projections only for the quarters that remain in
the year, plus the annual projection for the succeeding year.

     On an annual basis these contract level outlay schedules are to be
aggregated, modified as appropriate, and combined with outlay projections
for Step 1, Step 2, small Step 3 and 4, Section 206(a), and P.L. 84-660
projects, as well as expected outlays for future obligations and drawdowns
of Section 205(g) State delegation agreements, to become the Region's
annual outlay commitment.  This commitment will be in the form of a
monthly projection, by State and Regional total, of the outlay demand
for the upcoming fiscal year; and a annual projection, by State and
Regional total, for the following (budget) year.  The conmitment is due
to Headquarters by August 10th of each year.  Upon approval by Headquarters,
the Regions will be required to meet their commitment to within ±5% of
the cumulative projection on a monthly basis.  Regional performance will
be tracked only against the total Regional monthly conmitment.  The
State breakdown and the annual budget year projection will only be
considered activity indicators.
-------
                                   (3)

DISCUSSION

     This policy  is being implemented by EPA for two purposes:  to
develop more accurate fiscal estimates for the President's budget,  and
to initiate a comprehensive program of project management in  the post-
Step 3 phase of the construction grants process.  Accurate budget
estimates are required for this program because of its size and impact
on federal budget decisions.  Effective project management is essential
to assure that fiscal estimates are achieved, and that construction
grants projects proceed on schedule to achieve the primary goal of  clean
water at the earliest possible date and at minimum cost.  The program
being adopted by  EPA  is designed to attain these objectives.
                                          »U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 — 677-070/1103 REGION NO.
-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%  -                         WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460


                                1 2 JUL 1979
                                                             OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                             HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                                             Construction Grants
                                             Program Requirements Memorandum
                                             PRM No. 79-10


 SUBJECT:  Qualification of Major Items of Equipment

 FROM:     John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator Oo>£**    *•  1*zJ(jX^
           for Water Program Operations (WH-546)          f

 TO:       Regional Administrator
           Regions I-X


 Purpose

      This memorandum sets forth guidance for the qualification of major
 items of equipment for construction grant projects.  This guidance is appro-
 priate for use during either Step 2 or Step 3 phases of construction.

 Discussion

      The following qualification procedures are for optional use by
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grantees who desire to qualify major
 items of equipment for construction grant projects with the approval of the
 EPA regional offices.  Under 40 CFR 35.935-2,(43 FR 44071, September 27, 1978)
 the Regional Administrator may review grantee procurements including equip-
 ment qualification and may request additional grantee actions consistent
 with applicable statutes and regulations.

      Quali'fication is a system that may be used to ease the administrative
 burden of determining responsive, responsible bidders on equipment.  However,
 qualification is not a conclusive determination of responsibility and a
 qualified equipment bidder or offerer may be rejected as nonresponsive on
 the basis of subsequently introduced information e.g., shop drawings.  In all
 cases the equipment furnished must comply with the specifications.
-------
     There are a number of necessary minimum requirements for any quali-
fication system.  Whether the qualification procedure is to take place in
Step 2 or Step 3, all  of these requirements must be  met.  If the qualifica-
tion is to occur during Step 2 the qualification information package will
not contain plans and specifications.  Therefore a qualification information
package containing the relevant information must be  prepared.  This package
must contain enough specific detail  regarding performance and quality to
assure that equipment sources will thoroughly understand what is required
of the specified equipment.

     Adequate advertisement is critically important  to assure that knowledge
of the project is widespread and so that new manufacturers, small firms and
minority businesses are provided an opportunity to compete. Adequate time
must be allowed for submission of the necessary information for qualification
review since an overly strict time frame would limit competition. This
should conform to 40 CFR 35.938-4(b) ,(43 FR 44080, September 27, 1978),
generally 30 days.  Adequate time must also be provided for the engineering
evaluation of the qualification packages submitted.


Policy

A.  Advertisement

    The grantee is responsible for accomplishing adequate advertisement for
qualification. Whether qualification occurs during Step 2, or during Step 3,
the advertisement procedure shall conform to Section 35.938-4(a) of the EPA
regulations.  The advertisement procedure for qualification shall also conform
to the local regulations regarding advertisements for construction bids.
In addition to advertisements, private mailings to known equipment sources
may be made.  Mailing lists of equipment sources are available from trade
journals and technical associations.  The advertisement shall contain all
information needed by the sources to properly submit information regarding
their equipment for consideration. The advertisement shall include the
following as a minimum:

     1.  Address and telephone number of grantee.

     2.  Name, size and type of plant.

     3.  Name, address, and telephone number of the designer and
         name of contact for inquiries.

     4.  Location where qualification information package can be obtained.

     5.  Cost of qualification information package -- (this should not exceed
         the price that bidders must pay to obtain bidding documents).
-------
     6.  Brief schedule of equipment needed in the construction project
         that is to be qualified (e.g., filter press).

     7.  Locations of qualification information for review by interested
         individuals.  These locations should be the same as those used
         for additional information for contractors interested in bidding.

     8.  Deadline for submittal of qualification packages by equipment
         sources.  This should be a minimum of 30 days  from date of
         advertisement to allow adequate time for equipment sources to
         prepare their qualification package.  Longer time periods should
         be provided for qualification submission for complex systems.

B.  Qualification Information Package

    The qualification information package, prepared by the design engineer,
shall include the construction bid package plans and specifications or
suitable extracts of this information if qualification  occurs during Step 2.
These specifications shall be performance specifications where possible and
in all other cases conform to the two brand names or equal requirement.  In
addition to the plans and specifications, a description of the package the
equipment sources submit for qualification consideration should be included.

     The equipment sources should submit catalog cuts or readily available
specifications and drawings of their equipment and any  supplementary information
that would be helpful in the evaluation.  It should be  stressed that shop
drawing quality submittals are not required or wanted in this phase of the
project.

     All equipment manufacturers or distributors interested in supplying their
equipment for the project must submit a qualification package for approval,
including the suppliers who propose to furnish the equipment which may
have been preliminarily named to indicate the salient requirements of the
equipment desired.  This is required so that all equipment offerers have the
same opportunity to submit information for consideration, and to assure that
the equipment offered fully meets all requirements of the specifications.

    A time schedule of the qualification and bidding process must be
included in the qualification information package.

C.  Evaluation

     Evaluation of the qualification submission shall be completed by
the design engineer within 30 days from date of closing of submittals of
qualification packages.  At the end of the review period, the grantee
will notify all proposers of their status (by registered mail return
-------
receipt requested).  Such correspondence should contain notice consistent
with EPA protest regulations described below that any protest actions must
take place within the time limitations described in 40 CFR 35.939(b), (43
FR 44083, September 27, 1978).   By addendum to the specifications, the
grantee will notify the holders of the bid package of the equipment that
has been qualified for the specific project.

D.   Protest Procedures

     Protest procedures regarding qualification must conform to EPA reg-
ulations 40 CFR Section 35.939, (43 FR 44083, September 27, 1978).

     The proposer of any equipment qualified as a result of a protest
will be notified by the grantee and a further addendum to the specifications
will be sent to the bid package holders.

     In those cases when qualification takes place during Step 3 the
entire process (including protests to the grantee, if any) should take place
within the  time frame of the advertisement for construction bids and the bid
opening.  When qualification takes place during the Step 2 adequate time
must be allowed for submittals and prompt determination of qualified
equipment must be made.  All protests should be resolved before the bidding
process.  In order to satisfy this requirement, grantees must state in the
qualification information package and notification to proposers of their
status that any decision on qualification is final grantee action and the
time for protests under 40 CFR 35.939(b), (43 FR 44083, September 27, 1978),
begins to run from the date the proposers receive notification of their
status from the grantee.  Failure to protest within one week of this time
period will result in finding the protest untimely.  Consistent with the
procedures of this memorandum, after determination of the qualified equip-
ment  no other equipment can be considered.

     Qualification does not exempt the supplier from meeting the
specifications.  The specifications are the final authority for acceptance
of equipment.  Approval of a qualification package does not eliminate the
need for shop drawing submittals and approvals during construction.


E.  Construction Delays

    If bidding is significantly delayed, then the qualification process may
be reopened by the grantee with the EPA regional office approval in order
to allow consideration of equipment sources that may then be interested in
supplying equipment.  In such cases the previously qualified equipment need
not be reconsidered.
-------
F.  Other Qualification Procedures

    Qualification procedures consistent with state or local  law which
provide the same considerations in terms of competition may  be used
in lieu of these procedures.


G.  Public Inspection

    On the cut off date for submittal  of qualification packages for evaluation
a list of all equipment sources that have submitted qualification packages
shall  be published.  Whether the packages themselves become  available for
public inspection will be decided by local  ordinances on the subject of
public disclosure.

H.  Costs

    The cost incurred by the grantee incidental  to qualification of
major items of equipment for inclusion in a construction grant project are
eligible for construction grant funding during the step in which they are
undertaken.
Attachments
-------
               OJ
               o
               Q.
               OJ
               3
               c
-a -o m
a> -s -O
o fD c:
7TT3 -••
a> o> -a
ia -S 3
fD fD CD
l/>   =5
   .0 r+

   cu co
   — ' O
   -"• O
   n oj
   o> t/i
               oo
               o
               CL
               CU
Q)  fD O
r+ -S fD
—"•(DC/1
O  r+ -••
3  —'• tQ
   O 3
~O 3 fD
O*    "^
O  Q> CO
7T 3
Q)  Q. O
CO    O
ro  m 3
to  < co
   Ql _l.


   C I
                        "O
                        -s
                        TD
                        (15
                        -s
                        — i.
                        O
                        Q.
to
m
-o
ro
                                          Advertisement for Submittal  of
                                          'Qualification Packages
                                           Submittal
                                          'Package
                                   of  Qualification
                                           Notification of  Equipment  Sources
                                           of Outcome of Evaluation
                        Advertisement for Bid
                                                           Attachment  1
-------
               co
               o
               a.
               a>
               VI
o  -a m
P  -s -Q
rf fD C
_..-u -••
o  QJ -a
3  -S 3
   fD CD
-a   3
Q) -O r+
O  C
7T OJ GO
OJ  —i O
UD  -J. C
rt>  -+> -S
cn  -"• O
   i •
 Q) 3 UQ
IQ   3
 fD O) CD
 to 3 -5
   O- (/)

   m o
   < O
   a> 3
                     Q) QL
                     r+ rD
                     -•• -s
                     O I
                     3
                 ^^ -a -o
                  ->• fD -S
                  -h -S O
                     -". r+
                  CU  O 03
                  3  Q. co
m


CO
                                         .Advertisement  for Bids  and
                                          Qualification
                                          Submittal of  Qualification
                                          Package
                         Notification of  Equipment Sources
                        "and Holders of Bid Package
                                          •Bid Opening
                                                           Attachment 2
-------
\
       '
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                  WASHINGTON. D C  20460
      Subject:


      From:
      TO:
                                                       Construction  Grants
                                                       Program Requirements Memorandum
                                                       PRM No.  79-11
                                                       SAM 38
                                                              OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                              HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
    Funding of Waste  Load Allocations
    and Water Quality Analyses  for  POTW Decisioris

    Swep T. Davis,  Deputy Assistant
    for Water Planning  & Standards

    Henry  L. Longest  II, Acting  Deputy Assistart^/dmiXistrator
    for Water Program Operations               Ai'fr1

    Regional Administrators
    ATTN:  Regional Water Division  Directors
      Purpose

          This memorandum  establishes policy and procedures  for  the funding
      of waste load allocations and water quality analyses  required for  publicly-
      owned treatment works  (POTWs) decisions.

      Background

          EPA, recognizing   the costs and energy requirements of publicly-
      owned treatment works  (POTWs) providing treatment greater than secondary
      (AST/AUT), has taken  several steps to  insure that such  facilities  are
      only Federally funded  when based upon  technically adequate  effluent
      limitations.  In June  1978 a joint OWPS/OWPO guidance memorandum was
      issued which contained a checklist to  be completed  before a project
      providing AST/AWT  could receive construction grant  funding.  On November  2,
      1978, SAM 37 was issued by OWPS which  established policy and procedures
      for the use of Section 208 funds to review and  revise waste load allocations
      for POTWs  subject to  permit limitations requiring  AST/AWT.  On March 9,
      1979, PRM 79-7 was issued by OWPO which established policy  and procedures
      for the review and funding of proposed AST/AWT  projects.  Reduced
      Section 106 and 208 FY 80 appropriations coupled with increasing demands
      on Section 106 funds  to support the issuance of second  round NPDES
      permits and expanded  monitoring programs may result in  some states being
      unable to provide  adequate funding for the timely review and revision of
      waste load allocations.  It is therefore necessary  to provide additional
-------
                                 - 2 -

policy and procedures for FY'80 on the use of Section 201  and 205(g)
funding to augment Section 106 funds to support these tasks.

Policy

     Nothing in this memorandum is to affect the responsibility and right
established by Sections 303 and 510 of the Clean Water Act for each State
to develop water quality standards and waste load allocations.  The State
water quality management program will continue to exercise overall  manage-
ment responsibility for assuring that water quality analyses  and waste
load allocations are conducted in a satisfactory manner.   The primary
sources of funding for these activities are program grants and State funds.
The amount of Section 106 and State funds currently expended  for POTW-related
waste load allocations should not be reduced because Section  201 and
205(g) funds may be used, on a case-by-case basis and subject to require-
ments in this memorandum, to augment State and Section 106 funds to provide
for the development of POTW-related waste load allocations and supporting
water quality analyses.  Except where EPA and the State have  determined
that existing limitations should be revised, Section 201  and  205(g) funds
may not be used to review effluent limitations or to develop  alternative
effluent limitations; e.g., costs associated with the development of data
in support of Section 301(h) permit modification request are  solely the
responsibility of the requesting municipality and are not grant eligible.
Where Section 201 or 205(g) funds are used, the areal extent  of waste
load allocation and water quality data collection activities  must relate
directly to needed waste load allocations for projects that are on the
State 5-year construction grant priority list.

     The priority for use of Section 201 and 205(g) funds to  conduct
waste load allocations and water quality analyses is:

     1.  POTWs which have been determined by EPA and the State, as a
result of a PRM 79-7 review, to require a revised waste load  allocation.

     2.  POTWs on the State 5-year construction grant priority list for
which the State and Regional Administrator have determined, through the
State/EPA agreement process, that existing waste load allocations are
probably insufficient to support AST/AWT requirements.

     SAM 37 continues to apply to the use of FY'78 and 79 Section 208
funds for waste load allocations and water quality analyses.   FY'80
Section 208 funds may not be used to initiate POTW-related waste load
allocations.
-------
                                    - 3 -

Procedures

     1.  FY 80 State/EPA Agreement:  If Section 201 or 205(g) funds are
to be used for waste load allocations, the FY 80 State/EPA Agreement
(SEA) must contain or provide for the development of a detailed State
review of the Syear construction grant priority list.  Specific provision
for the review may be contained in the SEA itself or in the Section 106
program plan or the 205(g) delegation agreement.  Wherever a POTW has
effluent limitations potentially requiring AST/AWT and Section 201 and
205(g) funds may be used, the SEA, Section 106 program plan or 205(g)
delegation agreement shall provide for:

     0  an informal review of applicable water quality standards to
        determine whether they contain unsupported requirements or
        criteria; e.g., blanket discharge prohibitions or criteria
        substantially more stringent than contained in Quality Criteria
        for Water or any subsequent criteria documents published by EPA.

     0  the review of existing waste load allocations, if any, to
        determine whether they are technically valid and sufficient to
        support AST/AKT effluent limitations.

     0  the review of any other water-quality based permit limitations
        not derived from water quality standards or waste load
        allocations to determine whether they are valid.

Wherever the State and EPA determine that an effluent limitation is not
valid or supportable, the State shall provide a program to rectify the
inadequacy.  One component of this program shall be a list of projects
for which it is necessary to substantiate inadequate AST/AWT effluent
limitations.  This list should subdivide these projects into those
requiring new or revised waste load allocations and those requiring
other work.  Projects requiring new or revised waste load allocations
should be subdivided into the two priority classes described above.
Until this listing is complete, Section 201  and 205(g) funds may not be
used to fund waste load allocations.

     For all cases where the State has determined that effluent limitations
are unsupported for reasons unrelated to waste load allocations, the
priority of resolution shall be determined by the State and Regional
Administrator.

     2.  Funding:  The SEA shall allocate costs to produce valid effluent
limitations as follows:

     0  Section 106 funds may be used in any situation.
     0  where tasks relate to the basin-wide revision of waste load
        allocations, or to waste load allocations/water quality analyses
        not directly related to a POTW on the SEA needs list, only
        Section 106 or State funds may be used.
-------
                                 -  4  -
     Section 201  and 205(g)  funds  may be used  to  augment Section  106
funds for priority one projects  upon issuance  of  this  memorandum.
Section 201  and 205(g) funds may be used to  augment Section  106 funds
for priority two projects upon EPA approval  of the  State waste load
allocation program.

     3.  Headquarters Assistance:   PRM 79-7  provides for OWPO and OWPS
review of the adequacy of effluent limitations and  facility  planning  for
certain proposed AWT facilities.  Upon request, OWPS will  provide technical
assistance and advice on the review of existing water  quality standards
and waste load allocations,  the  development  of work programs, and on
draft work products.

     4.  Relationships:  The use of Section  201 and 205(g) funds  for
waste load allocations and the involvement of  201 grantees is new so
that additional guidance is  necessary:

     0  responsibility for the validity of waste  load  allocations lies
        with each State in accordance with Section  303(d)(l)(C) and
        303(e)(3) of the Clean Water Act.

     0  accountability for Section 201 funds used for  waste  load
        allocations and supporting water quality  analyses will  rest
        with the Section 201 grantee even though  the grantee may
        execute a contract or intergovernmental agreement with  the
        State or the State and an areawide 208 agency  to perform  the
        work.

     0  in order to prevent  a conflict of interest, it is recommended
        that waste load allocations and supporting  water quality  analyses
        not be conducted directly by the Section  201 grantee.  It is
        recommended that the Section 201 grantee  instead execute  a
        contract or intergovernmental agreement with either  the State
        or the State and an  areawide 208 agency,  which may subcontract
        the work, if necessary.

     0  wherever Section 201 funds are to be used for  waste  load  allocations/
        and water quality analyses, the scope  and schedule of work and
        the consultant contract  shall be approved by the State and EPA.
        The terms of this approval shall be  made  a  condition of the
        grant and shall be contained in a memorandum of understanding
        entered into by EPA, the State, the  201 grantee, and, when
        appropriate, the areawide 208 agency.   EPA  and the State  should
        be intimately involved in all phases of the work as  discussed in
        the attached management guidance.

     0  the conduct of joint waste load allocations is encouraged.

     Some previous waste load allocations funded  by EPA ultimately failed
to be valid because of inadequate data, inexperienced  personnel and  improper
use of mathematical models.   Consultant contracts should include  specific
performance standards and a  quality assurance  program  covering, where
-------
                                  - 5 -

applicable, model calibration and verification, sampling and analytical
methodologies, statistical adequacy of data, and personnel requirements
(see the attached management and technical guidance).

     5.  Municipal Enforcement Strategy:  The "Final National Municipal
Policy and Strategy for Construct1on~~Srants, NPDES Permits, and Enforce-
ment Under the Clean Water Act" (August 1979) provides that for projects
undergoing an AWT review, NPDES permits should not generally be reissued
until this review is completed.  Procedures for modifying or reissuing
permits for these projects are detailed in this document.

Attachments:

  Management Guidance
  Technical Guidance
-------
             Management Guidance for Funding of WLA Studies
Background
In order to ensure that grant funds for WLAs are used in an effective and
efficient manner, OWPS will be working with the Regions to ensure that
all Regions using 106, 201, 205(g) or 208 funds for WLAs have atleast a
minimal technical capability in the WLA program area.  In addition, there
should be a strong State program in this area or a committment by the
Region to guide and take responsibility for WLA work done in States lacking
a strong WLA program.  This part of the guidance describes what factors
Headquarters will consider in evaluating the Region's technical capability
in the WLA area.  It also addresses what factors the Regions should use
in evaluating State WLA programs.

I.   Regional Management Guidance

     OWPS is presently conducting a study of the AWT/WLA program in each
     Region.  Each regional contact has received a copy of the draft
     report on their Region for their comment and review.  Our aim is
     to work with any Region needing assistance to ensure that all Regions
     develop the necessary minimal technical capability by FY 80.

Based upon our work thus far, the following factors appear to be critical:

     (a)  Regional Staffing Levels

          The Region should have an identifiable staff for guiding and
          reviewing:

               Work-plans for development of WLAs

               Contract Work Statement for WLAs

               Interim output of WLA Studies

               Final WLA

               State WLA effort

     (b)  Regional Staff Qualifications

          Staff responsible for overseeing WLA work must include individuals
          trained and experienced in all aspects of the development of
          WQ based effluent limits, e.g., planning and conduct of WQ
          intensive surveys, mathematical modeling of receiving waters
          including calibration/verification, etc.
-------
                                -2-
II.   State Management Controls for 201  and  205(g) Funded WLA Studies
     1.
     (a)   The State must have an identifiable staff which is qualified
          and capable of, developing if necessary, or guiding and
          reviewing:
               Work Plans for development of WLAs
               Contract Work Statement  for WLAs
               Interim outputs of the WLA Study
               Final WLA
     (b)   State Staff Qualifications
          Staff responsible for overseeing or developing WLA studies
          must include at least one individual trained and experienced
          in all  aspects of the development of WQ based effluent
          limitations, e.g., planning and conduct of WQ intensive
          surveys, mathematical modeling of receiving waters including
          calibration/verification, etc.
     2.   EPA approved State Procedures
          State technical procedures and policies, (including math
          models  used, safety margins,  data requirements, modeling
          assumptions, etc.), for WLA development must be documented
          by the State and reviewed and approved by the Region.
     3.   EPA approved WQ Standards
          EPA approved WQ standards must be in place prior to
          commencement of the study.
     4.   Procedures for approval to initiate a WLA Studies
          The State and Region must guide the development of WLA, and review
          and approve the following prior to initiation of the study:
     (a)   Remedies to previous deficiencies
          Deficiencies that caused the original WLA to be rejected must be
          identified and solutions or remedies proposed.
     (b)   Selection of contractor/consultant to perform the WLA
          This selection must be jointly made by the grantee, State and
          Region, and should be based largely on the contractor's
          previous performance in conducting such studies.
-------
                           -3-
5.   Work Plan for development of the WLA

     A detailed work-plan must be developed by the grantee (or
     contractor).  The work-plan must include details on all
     tasks necessary in the development of the WLA.  The major
     elements of the study will be (1) Data Needs and Collection
     (2) Water Quality Analyses/modeling and (3) Allocation of
     pollutant loads and determination of effluent limitations
     on the basis of the WQ analysis.  Tasks for each element
     must be described in detail, including description of
     work, cost, output of the task and projected date of
     completion.

(a)   Approval of Work-Plan

     The Work-plan must be reviewed and approved by the State and
     EPA prior to conduct of the study.  The plan will serve as
     the guiding document for development of the WLA.

(6)   State-EPA tracking of the Study

     The Region and State must closely scrutinize every major
     output of the study as it proceeds.  A review mechanism
     must be developed, which will provide for timely reviews
     with recommendations for any mid course changes necessary.

     The study should proceed in stages or phases that are
     designed to produce concrete reviewable outputs at the
     end of each phase.  EPA and the State must review each
     output prior to initiation of the next phase.  Errors
     or shortcomings must be flagged immediately, and steps
     taken to correct the situation before the study resumes.
-------
                   Preliminary Technical Guidance for WLA Studies
Objectives  •

     This package provides technical guidance on development of WLA's.
The guidance establishes the basis for a credible procedure for WLA
computations.  Experience concerning what to emphasize  has come from EPA
water quality reviews of POTW projects requiring treatment more stringent
than secondary.  EPA's concern is that all future WLA's be sound, reason-
able, and technically defensible.
     This preliminary guidance will
are encouraged.*
                          be refined and improved.  Comments
It is EPA policy  (PRM 79-7) that: "That Agency will conduct a
rigorous review of projects designed for treatment more stringent than
secondary"; and, with respect to WLA, that:  "The waste load allocations
or other analyses resulting in the effluent limitations, along with the
assumptions on which the analysis is based, are scientifically supported
by intensive water quality surveys or appropriate field investigations
conducted on the water bodies in question, and calibrated and verified
models or other technically sound analyses".
     This guidance seeks to aid these policies and presents information
on:
     1.
the typical level of analysis expected for most WLA studies
to satisfy EPA review.  Exceptions, of course, are possible
and should be justified.  Examples are simple cases needing
only "desk top" computations or complex cases needing very
specialized mathematical models.
     2.
     3.
     4.
a "norm" for a scientifically defensible WLA procedures.  A
justification process that follows the norm would not be
expected to cause controversy in the EPA review.  Departures
from the norm should be discussed and rational explanations
presented.

the list of representations and presentations that a well
documented WLA should have according to current EPA review
procedures.

a checklist of problem areas that have stalled EPA WLA reviews,
or which are expected to cause difficulties in scoping future
WLA studies; these areas will be further clarified as this
guidance is refined.
^Comments should be directed to Dr. Tim Stuart (FTS-426-77^6), Chief
 Monitoring Branch, Monitoring & Data Support Division ('/.i-'-SM)
-------
                                  -2-
EPA Expectations


     The typical situations are described in  this  section.   Unusual
situations, as they occur,  will be judged as  departures  from the
following normal factors and criteria.   The logical  core of typical
WLA analyses and water quality concerns can be summarized with three
main points.

1.   For most projects, EPA anticipates that the WLA will be based on
     dissolved oxygen and/or nutrient (N,P) water  quality criteria.   Of
     course, other water quality criteria will be  considered when rele-
     vant to the particular project being reviewed.   (A  significant
     additional criterion is ammonia, in relation  to fish toxicity).
     Within this context:

     a.    If D.O.-related WLA's are proposed (BOD, NH3/TKN, reaeration),
          specify the D.O.  criterion in the WQS for the  surface waters in
          question.  Are there minimum and average components in  the D.O.
          criterion?

     b.    If nutrient (N or P) WLA's are proposed, are there numerical
          ambient criteria for these nutrients, if yes,  specify.   If not,
          are there other provisions in the WQS that address nutrients,
          such as narrative criteria that water should be free from aquatic
          nuisances, algal  counts, chlorophyll criteria? Explain.

     c.    If WLA's are proposed for parameters other than those related to
          D.O. or eutrophication, are there provisions in the WQS for their
          control?

2.   EPA will use the following criteria when evaluating WLA's related to
     dissolved oxygen (BOD, TKN, reaeration.)

     a.    A steady-state, Streeter-Phelps-type analysis  or  model  (considering
          both carbonaceous and nitrogenous wastes) at the  critical flow
          condition is acceptable, unless existing water quality data or
          the hydraulic setting clearly indicates  significant time and
          flow varying D.O. problems.

     b.    The predictive capabilities of the analysis/model must be adequately
          demonstrated.  This can be accomplished  through calibration and
          verification using two independent sets  of water  quality data
          for the receiving water in question.  If calibration and verifi-
          cation are not done, the WLA documentation must explicitly describe
          how the predictive accuracy of the analysis was established.
-------
c.
                                    -3-


          Weather-related nonpoint sources (NPS) loadings do not have to be
          considered directly in low-flow situations; however, the analyses
          should make reasonable allowances for any leachates, benthic
          oxygen demands, and background D.O., BOD, and ammonia.

     d.   An analysis based on historical data should have been made to
          determine the critical conditions for streamflow and temperature
          if not prescribed by State WQS.

     e.   If the critical flow situation is not a low flow, then it must
          be indicated how NPS loadings were considered; this is particularly
          true for combined-sewer situations.

3.   EPA will use the following criteria when evaluating WLA's for nutrients
     (P, N):

     a.   The analysis must demonstrate why a nutrient/eutrophication
          problem is anticipated based on existing ambient water
          quality data and field observation.

     b.   Sources and loadings of nutrients from both point sources
          and NPS must be evaluated, including estimates of the
          relative contributions from each.  Annual mass balances
          should be presented.

     c.   The analysis must indicate how the limiting nutrient was
          identified and evaluated for the water body in question.

     d.   The analysis must indicate how the decision criteria for
          maximum nutrient loadings were established for the water
          body in question.

     e.   If NPS loadings will be the major source of nutrients after
          the proposed plant is operating, the justification must
          describe what BMP's were considered and selected or rejected.
          How and when will the BMP's be implemented?

Scientifically Accepted Procedures

     The objective of this section is to define an approach to the
methodology of wasteload allocation.  The approach anticipates
linkages to coordinate complex analysis techniques.  Analysis and
the related policy problems are complicated by a large number of
interacting factors.  Among these factors are included:   point
source (PS) wasteloads, nonpoint source (NPS) loads contained in
land washoff, possible combined sewer overflows (CSO) and inter-
actions of meteorologic conditions that effect pollutional stress
including streamflow, rainfall and water temperature.

     Within this framework there exist mathematical computer models
with which the environmental impacts to water quality can be studied.
These models range from simple to complex.  Models are tools for esti-
mation of water quality impacts for constant or steady pollutant loads.
The intent of EPA is that when one uses complex models to handle a
complex situation, the margin of safety for load allocation can be
reduced.
-------
                                   -4-
Water Quali ty Standards

     The WLA approach assumes that stream standards  are given,  and  are
consistent with the designated use classification  of the receiving  stream.
In this regard, it should be noted that all  waters,  including  intermittent
streams, regulated by State water quality standards  must be classified  and
meet the criteria applicable to that classification.   These standards may
provide for time-limited variances for specific  dischargers, as long as
existing uses are protected.  In general, a  specific variance  proceeding
is preferred to a general downgrading.

     Where intermittent streams do not currently meet designated uses and
cannot attain these designated uses due to 1)  natural background features;
2) irretrievable man-induced conditions; or  3) widespread adverse econo-
mic and social impact (See 40 CFR 35.1550 (c)(2) ),  a downgrading is
warranted.  However, no downgrading may impair or  preclude existing water
uses.  EPA is developing guidance on downgrading of  use classification
based on widespread adverse economic and social  impact (item #3
above).

     Wholesale downgradings are not permitted, and would violate EPA regu-
lations 40 CFR 35.1550*  Also, intermittent  streams  often serve an  impor-
tant role in stream ecology as spawning and  feeding  grounds.  Therefore, to
determine whether a downgrading from the "fishable"  classification  is
warranted, a site-specified investigation of the particular inter-
mittent stream segment by qualified engineers  or scientists is required.
For downgrading to be approved based on natural  background or  irretrievable
man-induced conditions, this field survey would  have to show that the
site does not support fish survival or propagation,  and even with dis-
charges at normal levels meeting existing water  quality standards would
not support a fishable use.

     The link between wasteload allocations  and  stream standards is a
mathematical model to predict water quality  as a function of waste
discharges.  Such models exist and are integral  parts of the methodo-
logy.  For such a method, the wasteloads are one of  a set of required
input data.  Other members of the set include:  geometric definition,
upstream and tributary streamflows, water quality  of streamflows, quan-
tification of forces other than gravity that influence the water move-
ment including tides and radiation, and parameters that define the
transformations of the water quality.

     The WLA methodology has the following elements, any of which may
be greatly simplified given technical justification:

     1.   Based on a preliminary review of the discharge site  and the
          expected impact of the pollution load, selection of a model
          is required.  This model should be calibrated and verified
          for use in the WLA.  For DO, the normal  model will be a
          Streeter-Phelps type (Considering both carbonaceous  and
          nitrogenous waste) unless circumstances  dictate otherwise.
          For nutrients, a rational and defensible approach should
          be defined; a typical acceptable method  for a lake is an
          annual mass balance linked to a Vollenweider assessment.

*Refer to OGC #58 dated March 29,  1977.
-------
                            -5-
2.  A determination of the magnitudes of the wasteloads as  a
    function of location and future population and land use.

    a.  The point source loads are subjected to various treatment
        levels in accordance with current policy and may be trans-
        ported to various points according to different local
        and regional collection schemes.  The array of these
        possibilities becomes the alternative set for allocation
        analysis.

    b.  The NFS loads may or may not be a factor in the final WLA.
        At the beginning of a WLA analysis, NPS loads must  be
        evaluated to determine if they should be directly consid-
        ered in situations involving nutrients and eutrophication.

3.  A determination of what constitutes the "design event"  or critical
    conditions is required.  The design event, expressed in terms of
    such variables as streamflow, temperature and waste discharges,
    describes a specific condition under which water quality standards
    must be met.  One allocates waste loads for the design  event but
    should, if appropriate, make allowances for seasonal variability.
    This design event takes into consideration discharger exemptions
    from portions of WQS, when natural background conditions, such as
    flow, naturally high pollutant concentrations, etc. preclude
    attainment of some existing or designated uses.  However, all
    WQS required to support uses that exist under low flow  conditions
    must be met.  Furthermore, effluent must not cause a nuisance, due
    to objectionable deposits, floating debris, or objectionable color,
    odor, taste, or contain toxic pollutants in toxic concentrations.

    For point source loadings, low summertime flows are usually used.
    For nonpoint source loadings no usual condition or standard of
    practice exists.  In some cases, the problem of defining the
    "design event" can be avoided by using continuous simulations
    with a mathematical model.  A continuous simulation continuously
    translates a time series of hydrologic, meteorologic and waste-
    load conditions into a continuous representation of water quality.
    The results of continuous simulations can be inspected  and the
    failure frequency can be evaluated more directly.

4.  The acquisition of data pertaining to how the waters respond
    to wastes is necessary.  Either existing data may be assembled,
    or a field program is needed.  Such field programs should be
    of short, intense duration and should measure waste inputs and
    water quality responses simultaneously for at least two separate
    situations (high and low flows or warm and cold water or two
    other events for which water quality responses are different
    for the same receiving waters).
-------
                                    -6-

     5.    EPA recognizes the concept of tranferability of water quality
          data from one discharge site to another similar discharge
          site.  However, it should be emphasized that transferability,
          although an acceptable concept, is not applicable in every
          situation and calls for considerable judgment on the part of
          the water quality analyst to determine whether a situation is
          amenable to modeling based on transferred water quality data.
          EPA is currently developing detailed guidance on the use of
          transferred water quality data, and the criteria and constraints
          within which such transference may be attempted.

     6.    The fitting of the forecasting method (mathematical  model) to the
          data is necessary.  A two data set approach is the standard practice:

          a.   The first data set is used to adjust the transformation
              parameters of the model until observed water quality
              agrees with forecasted water quality.  This process is
              called calibration.

          b.   The second data set is used in the calibrated model to
              independently check the forecast.  If the model  can
              forecast the second data set the model is verified.

     7.    The forecasting of water quality for the "design event" using alternative
          WLA's is conducted in order to prescribe the WLA.  Two strategies
          are possible in the implementation of this element, each of which
          is  oriented to determining whether or not carrying capacity is
          sufficient to prevent violation of water quality standards.*

          a.   The alternative projected loadings can be individually
              analyzed and the water quality forecast.  Degree of
              treatment levels are gradually increased until the
              water quality standards are satisfied.

          b.   It is possible to work directly with the carrying capacity.
              The maximum amount of waste!oad that can be introduced into
              the water and still satisfy the water quality standards is
              determined.  This amount is allocated to the dischargers.

     8.    An  analysis of the impacts of errors, or changes in parameters, forecasts,
          and modeling assumptions upon the wasteload allocation is desirable.
          This sensitivity analysis is useful for the WLA review process.


*Note that Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations require
that an margin of safety be included in the WLA.  Also, note that nondegradation
requirements  apply for the National Resources Water listed on page 6 of PRM-79-7.
-------
                                   -7-
     The methodology of wasteload allocation studies is complex and the
normal mathematical model is a Streeter-Phelps type that handles carbon-
aceous and nitrogenous components.  Other methods exist and all methods,
from simple hand calculations to computer models, require a detailed
data base describing the quality and the hydrology of the receiving
waters. Uater quality data should, if possible, quantify and qualify the
following physical, chemical, and biological parameters:  BOD, dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, total  dissolved solids, pH, coliforms,
chlorophyl-a, biomass information, eutrophication evidence, temperature,
suspended solids, turbidity, and sediment.  Other parameters related to
domestic wastewater may be needed in specific cases.

     The hydrologic description of the receiving waters generally requires
stream flow data, velocity data, location of tributaries and point
source discharges, nonpoint source contribution rates,  water withdrawal
rates and other alteration of natural stream flow.  Stormwater discharges
are also of importance to many models as are meteorological data and
stream channel geometry.

     Modeling the impact of nonpoint source pollution requires additional
input concerning land use, topography, and soil types.

     The particular emphasis and specifics of each method and site
determine the level of detail as well as the specific categories of data
required for an analysis.  Current thinking is that two intensive surveys
of a one to two weeks duration be conducted to support  such studies.
One survey supports model calibration and the other supports model
verification.  A rule-of-thumb for effort expended in field activities
is that they should be budgeted to the same or higher levels as the
modeling analyses.

Documentation for Evaluation

     An EPA WLA review is thorough and detailed.  The information needs
for the review cover the water quality management field:  Water uses,
water classifications, benefits of cleaner water, standards, data,
modeling and WLA.  A list of twelve information areas is presented here
to specify the detailed documentation necessary to thoroughly justify a
WLA:

     1.   Definition of receiving water, its uses and possible health
          issues (maps with demographic features) and the general  hydraulic/physical
          setting (velocity of waters, gradient, lake or estuary,  dimensions
          of impact or recovery zone, nature of bottom such as sandy or
          rocky and similar details).

     2.   Specification of impact zone, existing water  quality (show
          data and evidence of problems) and of future  water quality
          with proposed facility (for examples give modeling results)
          and of existing aquatic growth problems if nutrients influence
          level  of treatment.

     3.   Justification and defense of design condition (low flow,  water
          temperature).

     4.   Presentation of numerical  standards, their relation to uses
          and stream classifications and their consistency with Red Book
          criteria.
-------
                                -8-

 5.    Statement that existing water quality meets adopted WQS, or where
      disparities exists, indicate whether downgradings or upgradings
      are warranted.  (Since most classified streams are designated for
      fishable/swimmable uses, proposed downgradings will probably pre-
      dominate.)  Downgradings must be justified on one of
      the three grounds described on p. 3, as specified in the WQS
      regulation 40 CFR 35.1550.


 6.    Specifications of previous field surveys and data used to support
      the analysis (quality versus time and quality versus distance
      graphs are very useful as well as details of measurements of waste
      inputs, instream quality and hydraulic variables) including, if
      possible, biological  surveys and findings.

 7.    Tables of annual nutrient loads by category, PS, NPS, background
      and by limiting factor (if nutrient problem impairs water use).

 8.    Details of determination of an allowable nutrient loading with
      linkages to nutrient  removal requirements (permissible area loading
      to lakes and National Eutrophication Survey procedures are typical
      level  of detail).


 9.    Technically sound and detailed analysis of NPS and their relationship
      to treatment requirements (pull together Basin Plan, 208 and any
      EIS studies and tie it into presentation).

10.    Presentation, specification, and discussion of methods (models or
      otherwise used to analyze field data, calibration and verification)
      and give the projections and waste load allocations.

11.    Tabulation of calibrated model parameters (carbonaceous decay,
      nitrogenous decay, aeration, benthic uptake, temperature cor-
      rection factors, logarithmic base (10 or e), and related para-
      meters with justifications of their selection).

12.    Tabulation of existing and proposed effluent flow and strength;
      include nearby PS and NPS data to show relative importance
      of proposed project.
-------
                                      -9-
Checklist of Problem Area

     This list identifies typical "flaws" observed in materials presented
in support of WLA justifications:

     1.   Hard data are not presented.  Observed data from instream sampling
          and effluent sampling both in graphical and tabular form are
          desirable to enhance WLA justifications.  The data should be
          matched by descriptions of how samples were obtained; e.g., grab
          samples, composite samples, diurnal effects, etc.  In addition,
          the standards should be stated numerically.  NPDES permits,
          existing and proposed, should be included.

     2.   Modeling results presented have not shown demonstrated calibration
          and/or verification.  Also needed is the rationale for rates used
          and for model inputs, particularly where these differ from field
          measurements or particulars presented elsewhere in supporting docu-
          ments.  The modeled results should demonstrate consistency with
          other project justification presented.

     3.   Benefits of stream clean-up as the result of project implementation
          have not been well presented.  Typically absent from materials pre-
          sented have been details of instream water quality standards vio-
          lations or public health problems that the project, as implemented,
          would alleviate.  Administrator approval of projects is ultimately
          based upon such justification.

     4.   Maps are not detailed enough or are absent.  "A picture is worth a
          thousand words" is a dictum relevant to WLA justifications.

     5.   Regional Context and the role of NPS and BMP's have been downplayed.
          The project as implemented should result in significant improvements
          to water quality and/or the public health.  Beneficial results of
          the project should not be negated by NPS problems that are not
          addressed.

     6.   Blanket effluent discharge limitations often appear unjustified.
          They often do not show thoughtful application to the specific situation.

     7.   Design treatment flows, population and flow projections often seem
          overstated.

     8.   Critical design conditions are too stringent based on expected
          probabilities.  In particular, it may not be reasonable to use
          the highest one-day temparature of record for any time of year,
          with a criterion such as 7Q10 low flow.  Temperatures used in
          steady-state low-flow analyses should be weekly averages that
          would occur during the same calendar period as the low-flow
          event.

     In addition to these "short run" flaws that will disappear as this
methodology is standardized, there is the major question of model selec-
tion.  This issue is expected to dominate the efforts to enhance and
refine this guidance.
-------
•tf
 \
 ?   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 3                   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                          6 NO'
                                               OFFICE OF vVATER AND
                                               HAZARDOUS MAI 6 RIALS
                                   Program Requirements Memorandum
                                   PRM No.  80-1
SUBJECT:      Discount Rate

FROM:       A^Henry L. Longest  II     _
           "^  Deputy Assistant  AdmTn'istraturfr'
              for Water  Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:           Water Division  Directors
              Regions I  -  X
    Attached  is a copy of  the  notice published by the
Water Resources Council of  the new discount rate of
7 1/8 percent.  The new rate was  effective as of
October 1, 1979.  Cost-effectiveness analyses in new
facility planning starts are to be based upon the rate of
7 1/8 percent.

    We have arranged  to distribute the  attached
information to consulting  engineers through the newsletter
of the Consulting Engineers Council.  Please distribute
copies of this information  to  the States for use in their
programs.
Attachment
-------
I, No. 210 /  Monday,  October 29,  1979 /  Notices
                                                                     Federal Register  /  Vol. 44, No.  21
hursday, November 8,1979, if the
s drawn on a bank in another
' Reserve District.
ks received after the dates set
 the preceding sentence will not
oled unless they are payable  at
'icable Federal Reserve Bank.
 ! will not be  considered
 _> where registered securities  are
 d if the appropriate identifying
  is required on tax returns and
 cuments submitted to the
 Revenue Service (an
  tl's social security number or an
 r identification number) is not
  1. When payment is made in
   a cash adjustment will be
  >r required of the bidder for
  '•nee between the face amount
    s presented and the amount
  n the securities allotted.
  very case where full payment
  pleted on time, the deposit
  ' with the tender, up  to 5
   the face amount of securities
  -dll. at the  discretion of the
  of the Treasury, be forfeited to
  ' States.
    'ered securities tendered as
   id in payment for allotted
   •re not required to be
    (he new securities are to be
   n the same names and forms
   a the registrations or
   ~> of the securities
    1. When the new securities
    listered in names and forms
    >m those in the inscriptions
   .nts of the securities
    'ie assignment should be to
    iry of the Treasury for
    ffered by this circular) in the
    •.\e and taxpayer identifying
    new securities in coupon
    •red, the assignment should
    'cretary of the Treasury for
    irities offered by this
    e delivered to (name and
    ccific instructions for the
    ' delivery of the new
     ned by the owner or
    ;>resentative, must
    ie securities presented.
     ,!ered in payment should
     •I to the  Federal Reserve
     h or to the Bureau of the
     Yashington, D.C. 20226.
      must be delivered at the
     'sk of the holder.
      securities are not ready
     . the settlement date,
     v elect to receive interim
      "se certificates shall be
      r form and shall be
      ar definitive securities of
       such securities are
      y Federal Reserve Bank
      'he Bureau of the Public
      ;n, D.C. 20226. The
  interim certificates must be returned at
  the risk and expense of the holder.
    5.5. Delivery of securities in registered
  form will be made after the requested
  form of registration haa been validated,
  the registered interest account has been
  established, and the the securities have
  been inscribed.

  6. General Provisions
    6.1. As fiscal agents of the United
  States, Federal Reserve Banks are
  authorized and requested to receive
  tenders, to make allotments as directed
  by the Secretary of the Treasury, to
  issue such notices as may be necessary,
  to receive payment for and make
  delivery of securities on full-paid
  allotments, and to issue interim
  certificates pending delivery of the
  definitive securities.
   6.2. The Secretary  of the Treasury
  may at any time issue supplemental or
  amendatory rules and regulations
  governing the offering. Public
  announcement of such change will be
  promptly provided.

  Supplementary Statement
   The annoucement set forth above does not
  meet the Department's criteria for significant
 regulations and, accordingly, may be
 published without compliance with the
 Departmental procedures applicable  to such
 regulation.
 Paul H.Taylor,
 fiscal Assistant Secretary.
 |FR Doc. 79-33577 Filed 10-25-79; 4 02 pm|
 BILLING CODE 4S10-40-M
 WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

 Principles and Standards for Planning
 Water and Related Land Resources,
 Change In Discount Rate
   Notice is hereby given that the
 interest rate to be used by Federal
 agencies in the formulation and
 evaluation of plans for water and
 related land resources in 7'/g percent for
 the period October 1,1979, through and
 including September 30,1980.
   The rate has-been computed in
 accordance with Chapter IV, D.,  "The
 Discount Rate" in the "Standards for
 Planning Water and Related Land
 Resources" of the Water Resources
 Council,  as amended (39 FR 29242), and
 is to be used by all Federal agencies in
 plan formulation and evaluation  of
 water and related land resources
 projects for the purpose of discounting
 future benefits and computing costs, or
 otherwise converting benefits and costs
 to a common time basis.
  The Department of the Treasury on
October 18,1979, informed the Water
Resources Council pursuant to Chapter
IV, D., (b) that the interest rate would be
B'A percent based upon the formula set
foith in Chapter IV, D., (a): ""  *   * the
average yield during the preceding
Fiscal Year on interest-bearing
marketable securities of the United
States which, at the time the
computation is made, have terms of 15
years or more remaining to maturity
* " *." However, Chapter IV, D., (a)
further provides "*  *  * that in no
event shall the rate be raised or lowered
more than one-quarter of one percent  for
any year." Since the rate in Fiscal  Year
1979 was 6% percent (42 FR 58232), the
rate for Fiscal Year 1980 is 7'/s percent.

  Dated  October 24,1979.
Gerald D. Seinwill,
Acting Director.
(I- R !),« 71-33200 Filed 10-26-79. B 45 am|
BILLING CODE 8410-01-M
 INTERSTATE COMMERCE
 COMMISSION

 Directly Related Motor Carrier
 Applications
 AGENCY: Interstate Commerce
 Commission.
 ACTION: Notice for proper filing of motor
 carrier applications directly related to
 finance applications.
  SUMMARY: Persons filing motor carrier
  applications [for instance, related
  gateway elimination or conversion
  applications under 49 U.S.C, 10922 or
  related securities applications under 49
  U.S.C. 11301] which are directly related
  to motor finance applications filed under
  49 U.S.C. 1343-11344 are instructed to
  write in bold print at the top of page one
  of the directly related application the
  words: "Directly Related." Also, persons
  are instructed that one copy of all such
  directly related motor applications must
  be mailed to the Supervisor of the
  Finance Support Unit, Room 5414,
  Interstate Commerce Commission,
  Washington, D.C. This will improve the
  ability of the Commission to consolidate
  and process together all motor
  applications which are directly related
  to finance transactions.
  DATES: These instructions will apply to
  all directly related motor applications
  filed with the Commission on  and after
  November 1,1979.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Michael Erenberg, 202-275-7245; Frank
  Buane; 202-275-7643 or 7615.
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
   16.1979. the Commission's final decision
   in Ex Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 35).
   Summary Grant Procedures (Finance).
   44 FR 41203-11205 (1979), was issued.
That rulemaking^
for quicker grant
applications, as
applications whi
to these finance .
instructions we i
these directly re!
(whether they ai
finance applic-;t>
therefrom) are li
coordination anc;
Too often, a diro<
application (for k
conversion, seen'
applicants or Cr
in delays In the p
applications v\hi<
and decided t*,gr:
   The instruction
 applicants filing c
 applications ifor
 OR-9 for convprs
 elimination or' >•
 securities issuarn
 bold print at »>•«•'
 application thf  I1
 ' Directly Related
 application tin'!'"
 purchase, control
 operating rights  o
 instructions  i|c(: <
 of each such  dirj
  application be rf
  oftheFinanci ^<
  Interstate Comrm
  Street and Cor-'i
  Washington, li  -
    Dal  d. October 2:>
    By the Commit"*'
   Director, Office ot I'
   Agatha L. Mergentn
   Secretary.
   |l R l)i>' 79-33248 Filed 10
   BILLING CODE 703*. »'•»
   Fourth Section Ar

   October 24,1979.
     This applicat-'  ;i
   haul relief has b('(
     Protests are d-  <
   days from the dat<
   notice.
     FSA No. 43760, I
   intei modal ratt-s o
   commodities in co-
   carriers' terminals
   Pacific Coast to po
   by way of Atlantic;
   points, in itsTcriff
   No. 2't Rates beca
   7.1979. Ground^
   competition.
i oeca
ndsji
-------
    I    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

   ?                      WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                            2 0 DEC 19/9
                                             Construction Grants
                                             Program Requirements Memorandum
                                             PRM 80-2
SUBJECT:  Step 2 and Step 3 Architect/Engineer
          Level of Effort Study            r
FROM:     Henry L. Longest II
          Deputy Assistant Administrator
          for Water Program Operations (WH-546)

TO:       Regional Administrators
          Attention:  Water Division Directors
PURPOSE

     The purpose of this memorandum is to initiate a multi-phase approach
to establishing final Agency policy and guidance for evaluating the price
for architect/engineer (A/E) services during Step 2 and Step 3 projects
funded under the Construction Grants Program.  In addition, it provides
interim guidance for this evaluation which is to be used until the final
policy and guidance are promulgated.  For the purpose of this memorandum,
the terms cost, price and profit have the meanings conveyed in 40 CFR
35.936 and 35.937.

     The specific phases are as follows:

     Phase 1.   Pending development of final  Agency policy and guidance
               discussed below, "Exhibit II" of the EPA Region VI publication
               entitled Engineering Costs and Fees for Municipal Wastewater
               Treatment Works, An_ Estimating Technique for Design of_
               Treatment Plants. Publication No. EPA 906/9-78-003, may be
               utilized as an additional tool in analyzing the cost segment
               of A/E services to design treatment plants funded under the
               construction grants program.   Profit should continue to be
               analyzed in accordance with specific policies or guidelines
               you currently use.  These reviews of cost and profit should
               be initiated only when the grantee employed Brooks-bill type
               negotiations or otherwise did not consider price (the sum of
               cost and profit) as the prime criterion in selection of the
               engineer.

     Phase 2.   A computer model will be developed to provide estimates
               of the level of effort (work-hours) required to design
               treatment facilities (including sewers) of varying sizes
               and types.  The model will also provide estimates of the
               level of A/E effort required during the Step 3 phase of
               a project.
-------
                                   -2-
     Phase  3.
     Phase  4.
     Phase 5.
Each Regional  Office will accumulate level of effort
and related information on recently completed Step 2
and Step 3 projects in its Region.   This phase will
be done simultaneously with Phase 2.

The information obtained from Phase 3 will be used to
verify and "fine tune" the computer model being developed
during Phase 2.  It will also be used to develop a family
of curves or charts relating work-hours, and perhaps price,
for elements of Step 2 and Step 3 services to the size
and type of treatment works.  These curves or charts
can be used separately or in addition to the computer
model when it becomes available.  These curves or charts
will be prepared by an EPA task force which includes
Headquarters and Regional Office personnel.  The exact
nature and format of the guidance documents has not
yet been determined.

The curves or charts and computer model, when fully
operational, will be used by Regional Office personnel,
State Agency personnel and grantees in conjunction with
appropriate cost, overhead and profit data, to determine
if the price proposed by the engineer is reasonable.
DISCUSSION
     Since publication of EPA regulations governing procurement of A/E
services in December 1975 which prohibited A/E contracts based upon a
percentage of construction cost or cost plus a percentage of cost, EPA
Regional Offices have had a difficult time determining if the proposed
price of A/E services was fair and reasonable.  Most of the attention
has focused on review of the profit segment of the engineers price and
the State of California and several Regional Offices have developed
policies and guidance for evaluating profit.  This has led to numerous
complaints about the lack of a uniform policy and the disparity in
application of similar guidelines among the ten EPA Regions.

     Based on data accumulated from firms and projects in its Region,
Region VI developed the publication referenced above as a guide for reviewing
the cost segment of A/E services to design treatment works.  The cost data is
probably not applicable to other Regions, but we believe that the estimate of
work-hours required to design various type of treatment plants, which is shown
in Exhibit II of that publication, may be a useful additional tool in analyzing
the work effort required to design plants in other Regions.  However, in
utilizing the Region VI publication for this purpose, consideration must be
given to regional differences in design due to climate and other factors,
established State or local practice as to the number of construction contracts
required, level of detail shown on plans, an individual firm's approach to
design  and changes in Agency Regulations since the Region VI data was
collected.  By applying an engineer's salary scale to the work-hour estimate,
as modified by the previously cited considerations, adding other direct
expenses and applying the appropriate overhead rate, a reasonable estimate
of the cost segment of A/E services for design can be determined.
-------
                                  -3-
     Our objective is to expand the Region VI study to incorporate data
from all other Regions.  To accomplish this, we are requesting that
members of your construction grants staff extract required information
from your files and visit A/E firms in your Region to collect level of
effort and other data related to activities such as preparation of plans
and specifications, preparation of UC/ICR systems, preparation of plans
of operation, including O&M Manuals, resident engineering services during
construction and other Step 2 and Step 3 engineering services.  The visits
may be combined with your other activities such as review of financial
systems and records or consultation on other matters.  To assist in this
effort, Mr. Le Young of Region VI and a cost/price analyst will spend a
week to ten days with your staff to explain the methodology and procedures
to be used in collecting the required data and may accompany them on some
of the field visits.

     The cooperation of the consulting engineers is essential to the success
of this effort.  Therefore, it should be explained at the outset, that as a
result of this study, more emphasis will be placed on the fairness and
reasonableness of the price of A/E services and less on level of profit.
Also, experience in Region VI showed that it is helpful to seek the
cooperation and assistance of the professional societies such as the
American Consulting Engineers Council, American Society of Civil Engineers,
National Society of Professional Engineers or similar professional organizations.
Representatives of these organizations at the national level are acting as
advisors to the EPA task force.

     The Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with EPA, has developed a computer
model, known as CAPDET, which, when given certain basic information, provides
preliminary designs and construction cost estimates for treatment facilities
of various types.  This system is to be expanded to provide an estimate of the
level of A/E effort (work-hours) required to design and construct treatment
facilities.  It has been decided to estimate "level of effort" rather than
cost so that the model will be applicable nationwide and will not be quickly
outdated by inflation.  However, the model will be capable of translating
level of effort information into dollar values when the appropriate cost
information (labor rates, indirect costs, other direct costs) and profit
levels are entered into the computer system.

     The computer model will be developed by consultants under contract
to the Corps of Engineers operating under an Interagency Agreement with EPA.
The initial contract for this work is expected to be executed in the near
future and the development of the computer model will be done concurrently
with the Regional data gathering.

IMPLEMENTATION

     When the grantee employed Brooks-bill type negotiations, or otherwise
did not consider price (the sum of cost and profit) as the prime consideration
in selection of the engineer, Exhibit II of the Region VI publication may be
used as an additional tool in determining whether the cost segment of A/E
services is reasonable.  Profit should continue to be analyzed in accordance
-------
                                  -4-
with specific policies or guidelines you currently use until such time as a
decision is made as to the advisability of establishing National Guidelines.
Further guidance for review of profits will be provided in the near future.

     It is requested that an appropriate person be designated to coordinate
your participation in this study.  Please advise James R. Murphy, Chief
Eastern Construction Branch at (FTS) 426-8945 as to the name and telephone
number of the person so designated.  Mr. Murphy can also answer any questions
you may have regarding this PRM.

     In the near future, the appropriate Area Program Manager will contact
your designee to arrange for Mr. Young's visit to your Region.

     The methodology, work plan and schedule, and appropriate guidance for the
conduct of this study are being developed by Headquarters and will be mailed
to you as soon as the material is completed.  Should you need additional copies
of any document referenced in this memorandum, they are available from the
Municipal Construction Division, EPA Headquarters.
-------
                       MANUAL OF REFERENCES

                Municipal  Wastewater Treatment Works
                     Construction Grants Program *

                  III.   GUIDELINES
     The U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  in administering the
Nation's Municipal  Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants
Program, must ensure that Federal  funds are spent wisely and effec-
tively.   Improved levels of wastewater treatment, secondary or higher
depending upon the receiving water quality conditions,  must be ob-
tained and maintained by the treatment works as  required by PL 92-500.

     Proper facilities planning, design and operation procedures must
be followed, and the most effective methods and  criteria must be applied
as they are developed and become sufficiently proven to support issuance
of Guidelines and Guideline Supplements (i.e., Technical Bulletins).
The publications herein are chiefly designed to  provide helpful
technical information and instructions to planners, designers, and
other professional  people in government or private firms, involved in the
Construction Grants Program.   These publications will be augmented or
replaced, in whole or part, from time to time as warranted by the emer-
gence and establishment of valid new technical data applicable to the
program.


*  Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
   (PL 92-500)
-------
                          MANUAL  OF  REFERENCES

                  Municipal  Wastewater  Treatment Works
                       Construction  Grants  Program

                       HI.  GUIDELINES

                            Table of Contents


 1.      Preparing  a  Facility Plan, Guidance (revised)  -  May  1975

 2.      Sewer System Evaluation,  Guidance  - March 1974

 3.      Design,  Operation  and Maintenance  of Waste Water Treatment  Facilities,
         Guidelines  - September 1970

 4.      Operation  and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities,  Supplement
         to Design Guidelines - August  1974 (replaces  pages  31  through  46 of
         "Design,  Operation  and Maintenance...", September 1970 publication)

 5.      Supplements to Guidelines:  Design, Operation and Maintenance of
         Wastewater Treatment Facilities - October  15, 1971
         -  Storage and Handling Facilities  for Chemicals Utilized in
           Wastewater Treatment
         -  Use of  Mercury  in Wastewater Treatment Plant  Equipment
         -  Use of  New and  Advanced Wastewater Treatment  Technology

 6.      Design Criteria for  Mechanical, Electric, and  Fluid  System  and  Component
         Reliability, Supplement  to  Design  Guidelines  -  1974

 7.      Wastewater Treatment Ponds,  Supplement to Design Guidelines -  March 1974

 8.      Evaluation of Land Application  Systems - March 1975

 9.      Protection of Shellfish Waters  - July 1974

10.      Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced into Publicly  Owned Treatment
         Works,  Guidelines - October 1973
-------
GUIDANCE FOR
          PREPARING A
         FACILITY PLAN
  MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
     CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
                     \
            REVISED - MAY 1975
              UNITED STATES
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
     GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING

         A FACILITY PLAN
  Municipal  Construction Division
Office of Water Program Operations
  Environmental Protection Agency
      Washington, D.  C.  20460

       Revised - May 1975
-------
                              FOREWORD
     This guidance is to assist with preparing a preliminary facility
plan for construction of municipal  sewage treatment works.   The facility
plan is the first step in a three step process required to  complete
treatment works with Federal grants from the Environmental  Protection
Agency.  The second step is preparation of detailed design  plans and
specifications.  The third and final step is construction of the treat-
ment works.  EPA will generally provide 75 percent of the eligible costs
of the three steps in the grants program.

     This grants program is now the largest public works program in
the United States.  The purpose of the facility plan is to  assure that
the treatment works built under this program are environmentally
sound and cost-effective.

     The complexity of the process of preparing facility plans will
vary with local circumstances, the size and nature of needed facilities
and the extent of previous planning efforts.  EPA is preparing model
facility plans, one for a community of about 5,000, and one for a very
small community of only a few hundred persons.  These model plans,
which are scheduled to be available in mid-1975, will give an indication
of the amount of detail appropriate for communities of these sizes.

     Effective July 1, 1975, this guidance supersedes "Guidance for Facilities
Planning" issued in January 1974.  It presents a more streamlined and up-to-
date description of the basic requirements and ways of meeting them.  We
welcome your suggestions for changes, additions or deletions which
would help achieve the Agency's objective of timely preparation of
facility plans of quality.
                                James L. Agee, Assistant Administrator
                                for Water and Hazardous Materials
-------
                 GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING A FACILITY PLAN


FOREWORD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1  .    INTRODUCTION

      1.1   Purpose
      1.2   Relationship of Facility Plans to Other Water Planning and
            Management Programs

            1.2.1  State Continuing Planning Process and Basin Plans
            1.2.2  Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans
            1.2.3  Municipal Permits
            1.2.4  State Responsibilities

2.    FACILITY PLANNING AREA

3.    PLAN OF STUDY  (POS)

4.    FACILITY PLAN

      4.1   Step 1:  Effluent Limitations
      4.2   Step 2':  Assess Current Situation

            4.2.1  Introduction
            4.2.2  Existing Conditions  in the Planning Area Without the
                   Project
            4.2.3  Existing Wastewater  Flows and Treatment Systems
            4.2.4  Infiltration and Inflow
            4.2.5  Performance of Existing System

      4.3   Step 3:  Assess Future Situation

            4.3.1  Planning Period
            4.3.2  Land Use
            4.3.3  Demographic and Economic Projections
            4.3.4  Forecasts of Flow and Waste  Loads
            4.3.5  Future Environment   of the  Planning Area Without  the  Project

      4.4   Step 4:  Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

            4.4.1  Baseline:  Optimum Operation of  Existing Facilities
            4.4.2  Regional Solutions
            4.4.3  Alternative Waste Treatment  Systems
            4.4.4  Environmental Impacts

                   4.4.4.1  General
                   4.4.4.2  Primary  Impacts
                   4.4.4.3  Secondary  Impacts
-------
            4.4.5  Additional Guidance on Evaluation of Alternatives

                   4.4.5.1   Institutional arrangements
                   4.4.5.2   Industrial Services
                   4.4.5.3   Flow and waste reduction
                   4.4.5.4   Sewers
                   4.4.5.5   Sludge disposal
                   4.4.5.6   Location of facilities
                   4.4.5.7   Revision of wasteload allocation
                   4.4.5.8   Phased construction
                   4.4.5.9   Flexibility
                   4.4.5.10  Reliability

      4.5   Step 5:  Select Plan

            4.5.1  Selection Process
            4.5.2  Environmental Impacts of the Selected Plan

      4.6   Step 6:  Preliminary Design of Treatment Works
      4.7   Step 7:  Arrangements for Implementation

5.    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

      5.1   Introduction
      5.2   Relationships between Planner and Public
      5.3   Requirement for Public Hearing
      5.4   Summary of Public Participation

6.    EVALUATION OF COSTS

      6.1   Introduction
      6.2   Sunk Costs
      6.3   Present Worth and Equivalent Annual Costs
      6.4   Example 1:  Constant 0 & M Costs
      6.5   Example 2:  Varying 0 & M Costs
      6.6   Example. 3:  Varying 0 & M Costs, Phased Construction and
            Salvage Value

 7.    ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

      7.1   Purpose
      7.2   Facility Planning and the  Environmental Assessment
      7.3   Environmental Impact Statements
      7.4   Environmental Considerations

8 .    PLAN SELECTION

      8.1   Introduction
      8.2   Comparison and Ranking of  Proposals

 9.    FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION  OF  PLAN

      9.1   Outline of Plan
      9.2   Appendices
-------
10.   REVIEW, CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS
      10.1  Purpose
      10.2  Three Levels of Review
      10.3  Compliance with OMB Circular A-95
      10.4  Submission to State
      10.5  Submission to EPA
      10.6  Revisions to Plans
      10.7  EPA Review
      10.8  EPA Approval
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
      A.I  FEDERAL REGULATIONS
      A.2  EPA DOCUMENTS
      A.3  CIRCULARS AND MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS
APPENDIX B
      Construction Grant Regulation
APPENDIX C
      Addresses of Regional Offices
-------
1.   INTRODUCTION

     1.1   Purpose

          This guidance suggests procedures  for preparing  a  facility  plan
     for  publicly-owned treatment works.   The plan  is  required  before a
     municipality may obtain a Federal  grant under  the Federal  Water  Pollution
     Control  Amendments of 1972 to prepare detailed design plans  and  specifi-
     cations, and to construct the treatment works  itself.

          The approach used here is to  describe the requires iu  in the
     applicable laws and regulations and  suggest a  planning  process by which
     they can be met.  The principal laws are the Federal  Water Pollution
     Control  Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) and  the National  Environmental Policy
     Act  (NEPA).  Federal documents which provide guidance and  assistance  with
     preparing a facility plan are listed in Appendix  A.   These documents  are
     referenced in the portion of this  guidance to  which  they apply.   They may
     be obtained from the Regional Offices listed in Appendix C.   The principal
     regulation dealing with the facility planning  process is enclosed with
     this guidance as Appendi : B, "Water  Pollution  Control,  Construction Grants
     for  Waste Treatment Works" (see particularly Section  35.917).

          The level of detail required  in a  facility plan  will  vary according to
     the  nature, scale and location of  the undertaking.  Local  municipalities
     and  consultants should discuss the extent of planning required by their
     community with officials of the State and tneFederal  Environmental  Pro-
     tection Agency.  Preapplication conferences of Federal, State and local
ipj
 nc
     officials to discuss how jo proceed will  be held to the extent resources
     permit.

     1.2  Relationship of Facility Plans to Other Water Planning and Management
          Programs

          1.2.1  State Continuing Planning Process and Basin Plans

               Facility plans will conform to applicable approved basin plans
          prepared under Section 303 of FWPCA (references h, i, and u).

               Under the State continuing planning process, "segments" of the
          nation's waterways have been classified initially as "water quality
          limited" or "effluent limited".  "Water quality limited" segments
          are those which cannot be expected to meet established water quality
          standards even if all point sources achieve the effluent limitations
          required by Section 301 of FWPCA.  "Effluent limited" segments are
          those where water quality standards can be achieved after all point
          sources meet the effluent limitations required by Section 301.

               All publicly-owned treatment works which are constructed with
          Federal grant funds authorized after June 30, 1974, must achieve "best
          practicable waste treatment technology", as defined in reference o.
          Publicly-owned treatment works discharging to "effluent limited"
-------
segments HVJS*,  as a minimum,  provide secondary  treatment as  defined
in reference j.  Such works shall  provide additional  treatment  or
include the use of other waste management techniques, when factors
such as water quality standards for the affected  waterway or avail-
ability of cost-effective technology warrant standards more  stringent
than secondary tieatment.  The precise discharge  limitation  for
facilities on "water quality limited" segments  will  be determined in
the basin planning process or, where this is not  complete, in con-
junction with the permit program.

1.2.2  Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans

     Areawide plans, authorized under section 208  of FWPCA, are to
set forth a comprehensive management program for  collection  and
treatment of wastes, and for controlling pollution from all  point
and non-point sources.  Controls for abating these sources are to
utilize a mix of land-use measures, management and regulatory pro-
grams, as well  as structural  methods.  The portion of the areawide
plan devoted to construction of publicly-owned treatment works in
the future should select and describe planning and service areas and
treatment systems, and provide supporting analysis for the selection.

     Areawide planning requirements, therefore, overlap with facility
planning requirements.  The Agency's policy on relationships between
the two programs during the period before final completion and
approval of an areawide plan is as follows:

     a.   New facility plans will  be started and carried out as
     provided in the State priority list.

     b.   The scope and funding of facility planning will be
     sufficient to collect all data and conduct all analyses
     necessary for expeditious completion of the facility plan.

     c.   Facility and areawide planning will coordinate closely
     and share their data and analytical work, but completion of
     facility plans should not be dependent on the areawide planning
     process.

     d.   After a facility plan is completed, the project should
     continue through the remaining steps of the grants process after
     opportunity for timely review and comment by the 208 planning Agency.

     e.   After  interim outputs have been developed and approved  by
     the State and EPA for the areawide planning area,  new facility
     plans must be consistent with the approved interim 208 outputs.
     The scope and funding of new facility  planning  should not extend
     to preparing a justification for  the interim 208 outputs.  This
     justification already will be available from the areawide
     planning  process.
-------
     The following will  be the policy after the areawide  plan  has
been completed and approved,  and the agency or agencies  identified
to construct, operate and maintain the municipal  treatment facilities
required by the plan:

     a.   All facility plans  underway at the time of approval  will  be
     completed by the agency  which received the grant for the  facility
     planning.  The planning  effort will continue as before approval
     unless the analysis in the approved 208 plan clearly justifies a
     change in required  treatment levels or alternative  approach on
     the basis of lower  costs or major changes in environmental  impacts.

     b.   The scope and  funding of new facility plans started  after
     approval of the areawide plan will be sufficient to  supplement
     the data and analysis in the areawide plan to the extent  necessary
     to provide a complete facility plan as required bv  Section  35.917
     of the construction grants regulation (Appendix B).

     c.   New grants for facility plans will be made to  the management
     agencies designated in the approved areawide plans.   New  facility
     planning will be consistent with the approved areawide plan.

1.2.3  Municipal Permits

     Facility plans must, as  a minimum, conform with all  applicable
permit requirements, and include a copy of the permit.  Where  a
permit has not been issued, the facility plan should describe  the
applicable Federal and State  effluent limitations.  These limitations,
if not known, should be obtained from State officials and the
Environmental Protection Agency.

1.2.4  State Responsibilities

     States play a central role in management of facility planning.
The States' responsibilities  are as follows:

     a.   To prepare a State  priority list for construction grants
     based on a determination of where and when treatment works  will
     be required (see reference b).

     b.   To determine,  through the basin planning process, the
     effluent limitations which must be met by publicly-owned  treat-
     ment works to comply with applicable requirements of Federal,
     State and local law.

     c.   To delineate,  on a  preliminary basis, the boundaries of  the
     facility planning area.   These boundaries may be adjusted as  a
     result of information obtained during the facility  planning
     process.

     d.   To review the plan  of study to ensure that (1)  the geographic
     planning area is adequate, (2) the nature and scope of the  planning
     tasks are properly defined and cover only essential  works,  and
     (3) planning costs are reasonable.
-------
               e.   To review facility plans and certify that (1)  the plans
               conform with the requirements of the construction grants  regula-
               tion (Appendix B); (2) the plan conforms with any existing final
               basin plans approved under section 303(e) of the Act;  (3) any
               concerned areawide planning agency has been afforded the
               opportunity to comment on the plan; and (4) the plan conforms
               with any areawide treatment management plan completed  and
               approved in accordance with section 208 of FVIPCA.

2.   FACILITY PLANNING AREA

     The facility planning area for new wastewater treatment systems  should be
 large enough to analyze the cost-effective alternative methods of waste  trans-
 port, treatment, handling and disposal of sludge and disposal of treated effluent.
 It also should be large enough to analyze the environmental effects of alterna-
 tives, as required by the regulation, "Preparation of Environmental Impact
 Statements" (reference a).  This regulation requires an environmental assessment
 as an integral part of a facility plan.

     Note, however, that facility planning shall be conducted only to the ex-
 tent that the Regional Administrator determines to be necessary to meet these
 requirements and to permit reasonable evaluation of grant applications and sub-
 sequent preparation of design construction drawings and specifications  (see
 Section 35.917-4 of the Construction Grants Regulation  in Appendix B).

     An applicant for a facility planning grant need not hold current legal
 authority to implement all aspects of a  facility plan as it may eventually
 develop.  He must, however, have both the legal ability and the practical ex-
 pection of acquiring such authority  at the proper  point in  the grants process.
 The proper time, in many cases, will be  after the  final waste management
 alternative has  been chosen near the conclusion of the  facility plan.

 3 .   PLAN OF STUDY  (POS)

     The Plan of Study  (POS) must be prepared and  approved  by the  State  and EPA
 before a facility plan  is begun, and before a Federal grant may be approved for
 a facility plan  (see Section 35.920-3 in Appendix  B).   The  POS  should briefly
 (generally in ten pages or less) describe the scope,  schedule and  costs  of the
 proposed facility plan.  The POS should:

     a. Provide  a map or maps  showing the planning area; the  SMSA; the  boundaries
     of political jurisdictions; boundaries of  streams,  lakes,  water  impoundments
     and water  basins;  and the  service areas  of existing waste  treatment systems.

     b. List  the responsible planning organizations  and agreements or resolutions
     for conducting joint  planning,  if any.

     c. Provide  the 1970  population  in the  planning  area.

     d. Describe briefly  why a  grant for facility  construction  is  necessary,
      including  water  quality problems  and applicable effluent limitations  if
     this  information  is  readily available.

     e. Summarize  briefly the  unit  processes  in  the  existing  system,  if any,
     and  communities  and  major industries served.

      f.  Describe data,  plans and other  information available to assist  with
      facility planning.
-------
     g.   Say if the State is expected to certify that "excessive infiltration/
     inflow" does not exist (see part 4.2.4 below); or that additional  data
     collection may be necessary.  If the applicant believes that "excessive
     infiltration/inflow" exists and a detailed sewer evaluation will  be
     necessary, the Plan of Study should so state.

     h.   Provide a schedule for completion of the specific tasks necessary
     to prepare the facility plan.

     i.   Estimate the cost for each task and the total  costs for the facility
     plan.

4.   FACILITY PLAN

     A facility plan can be prepared in seven major steps.   Each step is dis-
cussed in a separate section below, along with recommendations on how it can be
completed.  The applicability of these recommendations will vary with local
circumstances.

     Environmental considerations should be addressed during facility planning
to meet the requirement for an environmental assessment of each project (see
reference a).  For example, information on existing and future environmental
conditions should be gathered and assessed along with the information on other
aspects of the existing and future situation (see section 4.2 and 4.3).  Alterna-
tives should be evaluated for environmental impact at the same time they are
evaluated for costs and other impacts (see section 4.4).   A separate section of
the facility plan, however, should summarize the environmental considerations to
demonstrate that they have been adequately covered and provide a single point of
reference for a person interested in reviewing the environmental analysis.
(See Part 7 of this Guidance.)

     4.1  Step 1:  Effluent Limitations

          The facility plan should list the effluent limitations applicable to
     the facility being planned.  These effluent limitations normally may be
     found in a municipal permit issued under the National  Pollutant Discharge
     Elimination System.  A copy of the municipal permit should be attached to
     the plan.

          If the facility is on a "water quality limited" waterway (see section
     1.2.1 above), the applicable water quality standards should be obtained
     from the State and briefly summarized in the plan, in addition to the
     effluent limitations necessary to meet the applicable water quality
     standards.

     4.2  Step 2:  Assess Current Situation

          4.2.1  Introduction

               The facility plan should briefly describe the existing conditions
          to be considered when weighing alternatives during the facility
          planning process.
-------
4.2.2  Existing Conditions in the Planning  Area  Without  the  Project

     The following existing conditions should  be described to  the
extent necessary to analyze alternatives  and determine the environ-
mental impacts of the proposed actions.   Only  conditions which are
applicable to the project should be discussed.

     a.   Planning area description,  planning area  boundaries, poli-
     tical jurisdictions and physical  characteristics, including
     climate, geology, soils, topography  and hydrology.

     b.   Organizational context,  the role of all  organizations in-
     volved in planning, financing and operating publicly-owned waste
     treatment works in the planning area.

     c.   Demographic data,  the 1970 census population, land-use
     patterns, and major employment generating activities.

     d.   Water quality,  existing quality, quantity, and uses of
     surface and ground water.

     e.   Other existing environmental conditions,   air  quality, noise
     levels, energy production and consumption,  wetlands, flood plains,
     coastal zones and other environmentally sensitive areas,  historic
     and archaeological sites, other related Federal or  State projects
     in the area, and plant and animal communities  which may be
     affected, especially those containing threatened or endangered
     species.

Sources of information used to describe the existing environment and
to assess future environmental impacts should be cited.

4.2.3  Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems

     An inventory of existing wastewater treatment systems should be pro-
vided, including services, treatment plants, effluent disposal or reuse
methods,  sludge disposal methods, and flow and waste reduction measures
currently being used,  if any.

     The  discussion of  flows  should include average and peak wastewater
flows, wastewater characteristics.and wasteloads at key points  in the
system, dry  and wet-weather  flows,  combined sewer overflows, and the
location  of  bypasses.   Available data on industrial and commercial flows
should be summarized.

4.2.4   Infiltration and Inflow

      The  construction  grants  regulation  (Appendix B) provides  that the
State  may certify  that  excessive  infiltration/inflow does not  exist.
The  certification  may  be  based on  studies  or other  information available
on the sewer system  before  facility planning  begins, or gathered  in  the
course of the facility planning  process.
-------
          When the certification  cannot  be made  because  information  is inade-
     quate,  an infiltration/inflow analysis  should  be  conducted  in accordance
     with EPA "Guidance for Sewer System Evaluation" (reference  t).
     The purpose of the analysis  is to estimate  infiltration/inflow
     into the system;  to approximate, on a preliminary basis,  the costs
     of treating the infiltration/inflow versus  the costs of rehabilitating
     the sewer system to eliminate the problem;  and finally, to  determine
     if the  infiltration/inflow is excessive,  as defined  in reference  t.

          If the infiltration/inflow analysis  demonstrates the existence
     or possible existence of excessive  infiltration/inflow, a sewer
     system  evaluation survey should be  conducted,  in  accordance with
     reference t,   to analyze the problems  in more detail and determine
     needed  corrective actions and their costs.

     4.2.5  Performance of Existing System

          The performance of existing wastewater treatment facilities
     should  be evaluated to determine their  operational  efficiency.  The
     evaluation should compare existing  performance with optimum perform-
     ance obtainable in terms of effluent quality and  treatment  capacity.
     The effect of the following factors on  performance  should be considered.

          a.   Adequacy of plan design.

          b.   Quality of operation and  control.

          c.   Caliber and number of operating personnel.

          d.   Adequacy of sampling and  testing  program.

          e.   Adequacy of laboratory facilities, and

          f.   Quality of maintenance program.

4.3  Step 3:  Assess Future Situation

     4.3.1  Planning Period

          The planning period is the time span over which wastewater
     management needs are forecast, facilities are planned to  meet  such
     needs,  and costs are amortized. The facility planning  period  should
     extend  20 years beyond the date when the planned  facility is  scheduled
     to begin operation.  The most cost-effective plan nay provide  for
     phasing construction of operable parts  of the facility  to meet
     changing conditions over the planning  period.

          Phased construction of treatment plants, in  particular,  will often
     be the most cost-effective approach.  Consideration should  be  given
     to initial construction of a plant  with a capacity  to handle  the  waste-
     water flows projected for only a  part  of the 20 years planning
     period.  The plan should provide  in this case for adding  more capacity
     later to treat the remaining increase in wastewater flows projected
     for  the rest of the planning period.
-------
                            8

     Wastewater flows may be projected for  years  beyond  the 20  year
planning period when determining the most cost-effective design for
interceptor sewers.   Design flows must be fully justified in the
facility plan.

4.3.2  Land Use

     The facility plan should be carefully  coordinated with applicable
State, local and regional land-use management regulations, policies
and plans.  Projected land-use patterns and densities should be used
as one basis for determining the optimum capacity and location  of
facilities.

     Where land use plans have not been prepared  for all or part of
the planning area, an estimate of future land use patterns and  densi-
ties should be prepared in consultation with existing planning  agencies,
zoning commissions and public officials.

     Careful consideration should be given  before providing sewerage
for areas subject to flood hazards.  The facility plan should be com-
patible with State and local programs for flood plain management.

4.3.3  Demographic and Economic Projections

     Projections of economic and population growth should be used as
one basis for estimating future wasteloads  and flows.

     For  SMSAs, economic and population projections should follow the
work of the Bureau of Economic Analysis incorporating the "Series E"
projections of the Census Bureau.  Reasons  for departures should be
fully documented.

     Projections of economic and population growth for non-SMSA
communities may be based on extension of current (1960 or 1965 to
present)  growth trends.  Economic projections of industrial employ-
ment may  assist with projections of population growth.

     All  projections should be consistent with those used for control
of air quality, water resources management, and other environmental
programs  unless new  information and analysis justify departures.
Reasons for any departures  should be  documented.

     Projections  should  be  adjusted to  reflect constraints on  growth
imposed by  air  quality implementation  plans and land-use  and develop-
ment controls.

4.3.4   Forecasts  of  Flow and Wasteloads

     The  following  factors  should  be  considered when estimating  waste-
loads and flows  for  the  future:

     a.    projections of economic  and population growth

      b.    an estimate of non-excessive infiltration/inflow
-------
          c.    analysis of pollutant content and  flows  in  the  existing  system.

          d.    an analysis of the rate,  duration, pollutant content and loca-
          tion of combined sewer overflows  in the existing system during
          storms of different magnitude.   The analysis  should  be linked to
          the drainage area tributary to the combined sewer system.  This
          would facilitate forecasting of flow and wasteload increases  from
          future changes in the nature and  extent of the drainage area.

          e.    projection of future changes in flow and wasteloads from
          industries to be served by the municipality.   This projection should
          take into account reductions in industrial  flow and  waste which  will
          result from Federal, State and local pretreatment requirements and
          from imposition of user and cost recovery charges.

          f.    projection of gains possible from  selected measures to reduce
          flow and wastes.

     4.3.5  Future Environment of the Planning Area Without the Project

          The future environmental conditions for the delineated planning
     area under the "no project" alternative should be predicted, covering
     the same areas considered under Section 4.2.2.

4.4  Step 4.   Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

     4.4.1  Baseline:  Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities

          The alternative of optimizing performance of existing facilities
     should be considered first.  The level of treatment attainable with
     optimum performance should serve as a baseline for planning additions
     or modifications to the treatment system.

     4.4.2  Regional Solutions

          The possibility of a regional  solution  to wastewater treatment
     problems should be explored early in the planning process to reduce
     the number of options requiring detailed consideration to a manageable
     number.   Regional solutions may include interconnection of facilities,
     construction of one or more large facilities to eliminate the need for
     many small facilities and joint management of facilities  to improve
     operation and maintenance and reduce costs.   Joint facilities may
     involve interceptors, treatment plants and sludge and effluent disposal
     systems.

          Existing plans which address regional options should be referenced
     and important conclusions summarized in the  facility plan.  Further
     analysis of options will not be necessary if regional questions are
     resolved by existing plans.
-------
                           10
     Where regional  questions have  not  been  resolved,  discharge combi-
nations and effluent limitations  related  to  each  combination  should  be
estimated by the applicant or the Sta-te.   Any simplifying  assumptions
needed for such preliminary analyses  should  be documented.  Monetary
costs and environmental  impacts  should  be estimated.
     The analysis of regional solutions should address the following
special considerations:
     a.   effects of interceptor  location on land use  within  and
     between urban areas, particularly  where land is undeveloped.
     b.   effects of alternative  combinations on  stream flows in  the
     regions.
     c.   possible limitation on  future expansion due  to unavailability
     of land.
     d.   differences in reliability, operation and maintenance  of
     facilities.
     e.   environmental  and economic costs of delays likely to be
     associated with efforts to achieve a regional solution.
     A map of treatment system configurations should be prepared on
the basis of the above analysis.   It should show the boundaries  of
political jurisdictions and service areas for each treatment plant.
4.4.3  Alternative Waste Treatment Systems
     Alternative waste treatment systems for each service area should
be considered in addition to the regional questions outlined above.
     First,  the  implication of the "no action" plan should be set
forth with respect to potential  effects on:
     a.   surface water quality
     b.   groundwater quality  (if applicable)
     c.   land use limitation if "no action" alternative is selected
     d.   socio-economic factors (e.g., residential,  industrial
     development and health  hazards).
     Second, the plan should consider, where applicable, the primary
options  for:
     a.   flow and waste reduction
     b.   configuration  of  sewers and  interceptors
     c.   treatment  and  disposal of  effluent
     d.   sludge disposal.
-------
                           11

Options should be rejected from the outset if they fail  to meet physical
constraints of the planning area, such as climate, soils or topography,
or if they are incompatible with air and water quality plans.   These
options should be presented in the-plan, however,  with a very brief
summary of the reasons for their rejection.

     Alternative waste treatment systems must be considered in accordance
with information included in references o and s.  The following three
alternatives must be considered, as a minimum, to meet the requirements
for best practicable waste treatment technology:

     a.   treatment and discharge of effluent

     b.   treatment and reuse

     c.   land application

     Options for treatment and discharge should, as appropriate, take
into account and allow to the extent practicable for the application of
technology at a later date to provide for the reclaiming or recycling
of water or otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollutants.

     Following initial screening of the alternative systems, a limited
number of the most feasible options should be evaluated in detail.  The
evaluation should follow the guidance on monetary costs in Chapter 6
and on environmental and other considerations in the remainder of this
chapter.

     Proposals should be re-evaluated and compared after refinement and
estimation of monetary costs, environmental  effects and other considera-
tions.  Features should be added where practicable to each alternative
to offset or mitigate adverse environmental  impacts.  Each alternative,
including its costs and environmental effects, will then be displayed
to inform the public and solicit public opinions to help select a plan.

4.4.4  Environmental Impacts

     4.4.4.1  General

          Alternatives should be evaluated and screened for their envir-
     onmental impacts.  Adverse  impacts could be a basis for rejecting an
     option and, thus, reducing  the number of alternatives.   Other impacts
     may require further study and should be  identified, to the extent
     possible, early in the planning process.

          The evaluation should  assess both beneficial and adverse primary
     and secondary environmental impacts.  A  definition and examples of
     each type follows:

     4.4.4.2  Primary  Impacts

          Primary impacts are those directly  related to construction and
     operation of the treatment  works.  Some  examples are:

          a.   Destruction of historical, archaeological, geological,
          cultural or recreational_areas during construction.
-------
                           12

           b.    Destruction of sensitive ecosystems including wetlands and
           the  habitats of endangered species during construction.

           c.    Damage and pollution of surface waters due to erosion
           during construction.

           d.    Displacement of households,  businesses or services.

           e.    Noise pollution, air pollution and odor and public health
           problems associated with construction and operation.

           f.    Direct violation during construction or operation of Federal,
           State or local environmental and land-use statutes, or regu-
           lations and plans imposed by such statutes and regulations.

      4.4.4.3   Secondary  Impacts

           Secondary  impacts of a  project are  (1) indirect or  induced changes
      in the  patterns of  land-use  and population growth, and (2) other envi-
      ronmental  effects resulting  from changes in land use and population
      growth.

           Examples of secondary  impacts are:

           a.    changes  in the rate, density,  or type of development, in-
           cluding residential, commercial, industrial development, or
           changes in the use of open space or other categories of land.

           b.    air,  water, noise, solid waste or pesticide pollution
           stemming from  the induced changes in population and land use.

           c.    damage to sensitive ecosystems  (wetlands, habitats of endan-
           gered species) and environmentally  protected areas  (parks, his-
           toric sites)  resulting  from changes  in population and  land use.

           Primary attention in the environmental assessment should be
      given to  determining  if  secondary  impacts will possibly  contravene
      environmental and  land use  statutes or regulations, or standards,
      limitations  and plans  imposed by such statutes and regulations.
      Relevant  Federal,  State  and  local  environmental and land use  statutes
      and regulations should be considered.

4.4.5  Additional  Guidance  on  Evaluation of Alternatives

      4.4.5.1   Institutional Arrangements

           Evaluation of alternatives  should  include a  comparison of
      existing  institutional arrangements and  authorities with those
      necessary to implement each option.  The organization  to be
      responsible for management  of the  waste  treatment facilities  also
      should be identified  with  each  option.   Further,  the  costs  to
      each jurisdiction  for construction, operation and maintenance
      of the facilities  should  be estimated.   These matters, as well  as
      the total costs and effects of  each proposal, should  be  discussed
      with representatives  of  local government units, and the  views of
      other interested parties  solicited during public  review.
-------
                     13

4.4.5.2  Industrial  Service

     Industrial use of municipal  facilities should be encouraged
when environmental and monetary costs would be minimized.   Costs
of separate treatment of industrial  waste should be compared with
costs of pretreatment plus the cost to the municipality
for joint treatment, when industrial flow to be handled
by municipal systems is significant.  Pretreatment is required
in accordance with Federal pretreatment standards (reference g)
and any existing State and local  standards.  The analysis  should
focus on those industries which desire municipal service but are
not yet so served when facility planning is initiated.

4.4.5.3  Flow and Waste Reduction

     Some types of flow and waste reduction measures are listed
below:

     a.   measures for reducing sewer system infiltration/inflow

     b.   household water-saving devices

     c.   water meters

     d.   land use and development regulations

     e.   industrial reuse and recycling

     f.   on-site (private) facilities such as septic tanks

     Procedures for determining the cost effectiveness of measures
for reducing infiltration/inflow are found in EPA "Guidance for
Sewer System Evaluation" (reference t).  The cost-effectiveness
of water conservation measures can be determined by comparing the
cost with resultant savings for both waste treatment and water
supply.

4.4.5.4  Sewers

     Alternative arrangements of interceptors and trunk lines
should be compared to determine the most cost-effective configu-
ration.  Sewers in developing areas should be planned on the basis
of anticipated changes in land use and density.

     Analysis should be made, whenever possible, of the residential,
commercial and industrial land use changes that a centralized project
will induce.

     The sizes of interceptors should be based on cost-effective
analysis of alternative pipe sizes.  The analysis should reflect the
expected useful life of the pipe, all costs related to future pipe
installation, and induced growth effects of initial provision of
substantial excess capacity.

4.4.5.5  Sludge Disposal

     Environmentally acceptable methods of sludge utilization and
disposal include stabilization and subsequent land application for
-------
                      14

agriculture, enhancement of parks  and forests,  reclamation  of
poor or damaged terrain, sanitary  land fill,  or sludge  incinera-
tion and disposal  of resulting ash.   Ocean  disposal  may be  allowed
under special circumstances (subject to reference k).

4.4.5.6  Location  of Facilities

     Evaluation and choice of sites  for treatment plants,  inter-
ceptors, transmission lines, outfalls, pumping  stations, and
other major works  should take into account  the  factors  cited
below and discussed further in references p,  q, and y.

     a.   minimize odors and locate  away from residential  areas
     which would be affected by odors

     b.   minimize aesthetic problems by design and landscaping

     c.   locate outfalls where they will not affect public water
     supply, shell fishing beds, and  contact recreational waters.
     Where alternative sites are unavailable, special  precautions
     must be taken in accordance with references p and  y.

     d.   locate treatment plants and other facilities  in general
     outside of floodplains.  Where  such locations are
     not practicable or would lead to excessive costs,  the plant
     and equipment will be protected against flooding as described
     in reference p.

4.4.5.7  Revision of Wasteload Allocation

     Wasteload allocations are the basis for determining effluent
limitations to be achieved by a treatment plant.  They are
normally prepared as part of the State basin planning process and
are reflected in the discharge permit.  Facility planning may
result in a change in the discharge locations and the wasteload
distribution among the locations.  The wasteload allocation, in
this case,  should be reviewed by the State or EPA and modified
to reflect  the configuration of discharges  in the proposed plan.

4.4.5.8  Phased Construction

     Adding capacity in phases during a planning period will be
more cost-effective in some cases.than providing sufficient capa-
city in initial construction for the entire planning period.  A
method for  cost analysis of phased development  is discussed in
Chapter 6.  Factors to be considered are:

     a.   relative cost of  providing excess capacity initially
     compared with the present worth of deferred costs for pro-
     viding capacity when needed.
-------
                               15

               b.    uncertainties of projected  long-term wastewater  flows,
               and possible technological  advances  or flow and waste reduc-
               tion measures which may limit need for excess  capacity.

               Modular development of operable  components of  a treatment
          plant is advisable in areas where high growth rates are projected,
          where treatment must become more stringent later in the planning
          period,  or where existing facilities  are  to be used initially but
          phased out later.

          4.4.5.9  Flexibility

               Facility planning should consider providing sufficient land
          and choosing layouts and siting  to allow  for expansion of  the plant
          to handle unforeseen increases in wastewater flows  and required
          treatment levels.

               Interceptors and collection systems  may be planned to meet
          unforeseen expansions of the service  area.  Consideration  should
          be given, for example, to obtaining extra sewer rights-of-way for
          staged parallel pipes and pipe extensions and temporary treatment
          plants.

          4.4.5.10  Reliability

               Emphasis on reliability should focus on the most critical
          processes in accordance with the requirements in reference p.

4.5  Step 5.  Select Plan

     4.5.1  Selection Process

          The public sh_j1d be provided with alternative proposals,  and a
     public meeting or hearing held to explain  each proposal  and obtain the
     views of all  concerned (see Chapter 5).  The  opinions expressed should  be
     weighed with estimated environmental  effects,  monetary costs, feasibility,
     resources and energy use, and reliability. The alternative proposals
     should be ranked on the basis of these considerations and a plan selected.
     Additional guidance on selection of a plan is  provided in Chapter 8.
-------
                               16

     4.5.2  Environmental  Impacts of the Selected Plan

          The primary and  secondary impacts of  the  selected  plan  should  be
     summarized.   Special  attention should be given in the summary to  the
     following:

          a.   Any unavoidable adverse  impacts  resulting  from the project.

          b.   Relationship between local  short term uses of the  environment
          and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.  This
          should  include a description  of  the extent to which the action
          involves tradeoffs between short term environmental  gains  at the
          expense of long  term gains or vice-versa, and the  extent to  which
          the proposed action forecloses future options.  Special
          attention should be given to  effects  which narrow  the range
          of future uses of land and water resources or pose long-term
          risks  to health  or safety.

          c.    Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
          An evaluation should be made  of  the extent to which the
          proposed action  requires commitment of construction materials,
          man-hours, energy and other resources, and curtails the range
          of future uses of land and water resources.

          d.    Steps to minimize adverse effects.   Structural and
          nonstructural measures, if any,  should be described to
          mitigate or eliminate significant  adverse effects  on the
          human  and natural environments.

4.6  Step 6:  Preliminary  Design of Treatment Works

     Preliminary engineering designs will  be prepared in  accordance  with
references p, q,  and y for those treatment works proposed for initial
construction and scheduled for preparation of  drawings and  specifica-
tions.  Such information would include, as appropriate,  a schematic
flow diagram, unit processes, plant  site plans, sewer pipe  plans  and
profiles, and design data  regarding  detention  times, flow rates,  sizing
of units and so forth.  It would also  include  a summary of requirements
for operation and maintenance of the  treatment  works.  Cost  estimates
for final design, preparation of plans  and specifications,  and
construction of the treatment works,  together  with a schedule for
completion of all such work, should be presented.
-------
                              17

4.7  Step 7:  Arrangements for Implementation

     Following selection of plan and design, existing institutional  arrange-
ments should be reviewed and a financial  program developed, including
preliminary allocation of the costs among various classes of users of the
system (see Appendix B).  Agreement should be reached among participating
entities on arrangements for implementing the plan.  The State and Regional
Administrator may approve the plan, however, even in the absence of final
agreement on such arrangements.

      A preliminary plan of operation should be prepared to provide for
staffing, management, training, sampling and analysis for effective operation
and maintenance of the facility.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

5.1  Introduction

     Minimum requirements for the public role in facility planning are
described in the Construction Grants regulation (Appendix B) and the regu-
lation entitled "Public Participation in Water Pollution Control" (refer-
ence f).  The public should participate from the beginning in facility
planning so that interests and potential  conflicts may be identified early
and considered as planning proceeds.

5.2  Relationships between Planner and Public

     The planner should define issues and analyze information so that the
public will clearly understand the costs and benefits of alternatives
considered during the planning process.  He also should ensure that the
interests of a broad spectrum of the public are represented in the
planning process.

     The public can be involved through a variety of means, including the
following:

     -advisory groups          -public hearings       -news media
     -information contacts     -task forces           -speeches
     -correspondence           -workshops             -seminars
     -interviews               -exhibitions           -depositions
     -liaison with citizen     -mailings              -surveys
        groups
     -public meetings          -newsletters           -polls

5.3  Requirement for Public Hearings

     A public hearing must be  held on the facility  plan unless EPA has
waived the requirement in advance  (see section 35.917-5 of Appendix B).
The location of the  hearing should be easily accessible and facilitate
attendance and testimony by a  cross-section of interested or affected
organizations and interests.   Notice will generally be given at least
-------
                                18


      thirty calendar days  before  the  hearing  is  to  be  held  to  obtain  formal
      comments  of all  concerned  interests  on the  alternative proposals.   It
      is suggested that the notice include mention of where  information on
      the facility plan may be obtained  before the hearing.

      5.4    Summary of Public Participation

             A  report summarizing  public participation  should be  prepared and
      submitted as part of  the facility  plan.   It should  as  a minimum  contain
      a brief description of the views expressed  at  any public hearings held
      on the project.   It also may describe other measures taken  to  provide
      for, encourage concerned interests;  and  the disposition of  the issues
      raised.

6.     EVALUATION OF COSTS

      6.1    Introduction

             Appendix A to  the construction grants  regulation (see Appendix  B  in
      this guidance) describes basic methodology  for calculation  of direct mone-
      tary costs.  This chapter  provides supplemental  guidance for applying  this
      methodology in practice.

      6.2    Sunk Costs

             Appendix A to  the construction  grants  regulation provides comprehensive
      instructions for cost evaluation,  except with  respect  to sunk costs.   Any
      investments or commitments made prior  to our  concurrent with facility
      planning  will be regarded  as sunk  costs  and not included as monetary costs
      in the plan.  Such investments and commitments include:

             a.  investments in  existing wastewater treatment facilities  and
             associated lands even though incorporated in the plan.

             b.  outstanding bond indebtness.

             c.  cost of preparing the facility plan.

      6.3    Present Worth and Equivalent Annual  Costs

             The following examples show how to calculate present worth and  equiva-
      lent annual costs for a project.  Present worth may be thought of as the
      sum, which if invested now at a given  rate, would provide exactly the funds
      required to make all  necessary expenditures during the life of the project.
      Equivalent annual cost  is the expression of a non-uniform series of expen-
      ditures as a uniform annual amount to simplify calculation of present worth.
      Detailed procedures for making these calculations are well  known and ex-
      plained in such  books as Principles of Engineering Economy by Eugene L.
-------
                               19

Grant and W. Grant Ireson (reference aa), and Economics of Water Resource
Planning by L. Douglas James and Robert Lee (reference bb).

     The three cases described below include:  (1) a simplistic one, assuming
constant 0 & M costs; (2) a case with varying 0 & M costs; and (3) a third
case assuming varying 0 & M, phased construction and a positive salvage value.
Note that the second and third cases actually compare two alternatives for
treating a given community's waste.

     In order to perform the following analysis, you will need a table of
7.0 percent compound interest factors and a table of factors to compute
the present worth of a gradient series.  These tables may usually be found
in an engineering economics textbook.

     The interest rate of 7.0 percent is used for these examples only.  The
actual interest rate which must be used for evaluating costs in a facility
plan is published annually by the United States Water Resources Council
(see reference 1).

6.4  Example 1:  Constant 0 & M Costs

     GIVEN:

         sewage treatment plant #1
         capacity: 10 mgd
         average flow through plant:  9 mgd
         planning period:  20 years
         salvage value at the end of 20 years:  $0
         initial cost of plant:  $3 million
         average annual operation and maintenance cost:  $190,000
         interest rate:  7.0 percent

     DETERMINE:  Present worth and equivalent annual cost of this plant
                 over 20 years.

     METHOD:  Present worth equals initial cost plus the present worth of
                 the operating and maintenance costs.  Equivalent annual
                 costs equals the present worth times the appropriate
                 capital recovery factor.

     Step 1

         Initial cost =                           $3,000.000

     Step 2

         Present worth of annual 0 & M cost equals annual 0 & M costs times
         the uniform series present worth factor @ 7.0% for 20 years.  Thus:

         $190,000 (10.594) =                      $2,013,000
-------
                                20

     Step 3

         Sum of numbers  obtained in  the above  steps yields  present worth

         initial cost =                            $3,000,000
         present worth of 0 & M cost =             $2,013,000
         present worth =                          $5,013,000

     Step 4

         To find equivalent annual  cost,  multiply present worth  obtained
         above times the capital recovery factors @ 7.0% for  20  years.  Thus:

         $5,013,000 (.09439) =                    $   474.000

         is the average  annual equivalent cost of the plant over 20  years.

6.5  Example 2:  Varying 0 & M Costs

     GIVEN:

         sewage treatment plant #2
         capacity:  10 mgd
         average flow through plant:  increase linearly from  2 mgd  to
            10 mgd over  20 years
         planning period:  20 years
         salvage value at end of 20 years:  $0
         initial cost of plant:  $3,000,000
         constant annual operation  and maintenance cost:   $126,000
         variable annual operation  and maintenance cost:   increases
            linearly from $0 to $68,000 in year 20
         interest rate:   7.0 percent

     DETERMINE:  Present worth and  average annual equivalent  cost of this
                 plant over 20 years.

     METHOD:  Present worth equals  the sum of initial cost, present worth
                 of constant 0 & M cost,  and the present worth of the
                 gradient series of the variable 0 &  M cost.   Equivalent
                 annual  cost  is derived as in the first case.

     Step  1

         Initial cost =                           $3,000,000

     Step  2

         To find the  present worth of operating costs, it will be necessary
         to calculate the present worths of the constant costs and the
         variable costs  separately.
-------
                               21

         a.    Present worth of constant annual  costs  equals  that  cost  times
         the uniform series present  worth  factor  @  7.0%  for  20 years.   Thus:

         $126,000 (10.594)  =                     $1,335.000

         b.    Present worth of a variable  cost  increasing  linearly  is  found
         by  first finding the amount of increase  per  year.   This  amount is
         $68,000/20 years or $3,400  per year.   This increase is  known  as  a
         gradient series.  This series times  the  correct gradient series
         present worth factor @ 7.0% for 20 years yields the present worth
         of  the variable cost.  Thus:

         $3,400 (77.5091) =                      $   264,000

     Step 3

         Sum of numbers obtained in  the steps above yields present  worth:

         initial cost =                          $3,000,000
         present worth of constant 0 & M costs    $1,335,000
         present worth of variable 0 & M costs    $   264,000
         present worth =                         $4,599,000

     Step 4

         As  before, the present worth just derived  times the capital recovery
         factor @ 7.0% for 20 years  will yield  the  average annual equivalent
         cost.  Thus:

         $4,599,000 (.09439) =                   $   434.100

         which is the average annual equivalent cost  of  the  plant for  20
         years.

6.6  Example 3:  Varying 0 & M Costs, Phased  Construction, and  Salvage Value

     GIVEN:

         sewage treatment plant #3
         capacity:  years 1-10, 5 mgd; years  11-20, 10 mgd
         average flow through plant:  increases linearly from 2  mgd to 10
            mgd over 20 years
         planning period:  20 years
         salvage value at the end of 20 years:   $750,000
         initial cost of plant (5 mgd):  $2,000,000
         cost to upgrade at year 10  to 10  mgd:   $1,500,000
         operation and maintenance costs:
-------
                            22

     a.    constant  annual  0 & M cost, years 1-10:   $84,000

     b.    variable  annual  0 & M cost, years 1-10:  increases linearly
     from 0 -  $29,000  in year 10

     c.    constant  annual  0 & M cost, years 11-20:  $165,000

     d.    variable  annual  0 & M cost, years 11-20:  increases linearly
     from 0 to $29,000 in  year 20

interest rate:  7.0 percent

  DETERMINE:  Present  worth and annual  equivalent cost of  this  plant
              over  20  years.

  METHOD:  Present  worth  is derived  as  in  the  previous example;  however,
              this  time calculate  0  & M costs  from year  1  to 10 and 0 & M
              costs from year  11-20  separately.   It is necessary also to
              add the  present worth  of  the expansion  and subtract the
              present  worth of the salvage value  from the  present worth
              of the costs.  Average annual equivalent costs are
              calculated  as before.
  Step 1

      Initial  cost =

  Step 2
 $2,000.000
      Calculate the present worth of the 0 & M costs  as  follows:

      a.  Present worth of constant annual cost years 1-10 equals given
      cost times uniform series present worth factors @  7.0% for  10
      years.  Thus:
      $84,000 (7.024) =
$   590,000
      b.  Present worth of the variable 0 & M costs years 1-10 equals
      the gradient series ($2900) times the present worth factor of a
      gradient series @ 7.0% for 10 years.  Thus:
      $2,900 (27.7156) =
$    80,400
      c.   The present worth of the constant 0 & M costs year 11-20
      are first calculated as in (a) above using the given cost for
      years 11-20.  This, however, yields present worth in year 11 which
      must be converted to present worth in year 1.  This is accomplished
      by multiplying the present worth (year 11) times the single payment
      present worth factor @ 7.0% for 10 years (.5083).  Thus, present
      worth in year 1 equals:
      $165,000 (7.024)(.5083) =
 $  589.100
-------
                          23

    d.  The present worth of the variable 0 &  M costs  years  11-20
    are first calculated as in (b)  above using the gradient  series  for
    years 11-20 which is $2900.   This yields the present worth in year
    11 which again must be converted to present worth  in year 1 by
    multiplying the present worth (year 11) times the  single payment
    present worth factor @ 7.0%  for 10 years (.5083).   Thus:

    $2,000 (27.7156)(.5083) =                $  40,900

Step 3

    To determine the present worth  of the upgrade cost which occurs
    at year 10, multiply the upgrade cost times the single payment
    present worth factors @ 7.0% for 10 years.  Thus:

    $1,500,000 (.5083) =                     $  763,000

Step 4

    The present worth of the salvage value at  the end  of 20  years
    equals that value times the  single payment present worth factor
    9 7.0% for 20 years.  Thus:

    $750,000 (.2584) =                       $  194.000

Step 5

    The sums of the values obtained in Steps 1, 2, and 3 minus the
    value obtained in Step 4 will equal the present worth of the
    plan.  Thus:

    initial cost =                          $2,000,000
    present worth of constant 0  & M year
      1-10                                     590,000
    present worth of variable 0  & M year
      1-10 =                                $    80,400
    present worth of constant 0  & M year
      11-20 =                               $   589,100
    present worth of variable 0  & M year
      11-20 =                                   40,900
    present worth of upgrade at  year 10 =   $   763,000

                         TOTAL              $4,063,400

    Subtract from the total the  present worth  of salvage value

    present worth of salvage value =      - $   194,000
    present worth of plant =                $3,869,400
-------
                                     24

          Step 6

              As before,  the present worth  just  derived  times  the  capital
              recovery factor @ 7.0% for  20 years  will yield the average
              annual  equivalent cost. Thus:

              $3,869,400  (.09439)  =                   $  365,200

              which is the average annual equivalent cost of the plant over
              20 years.


7.    ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

     7.1   Purpose

          This part summarizes the requirements  for evaluation of  environmental
     impacts in the facility planning process and  describes the reasons for
     these requirements.

          The environmental evaluation serves two  purposes:

          a.   to provide comparative data  to assist selection of  the best
          alternative plan.

          b.   to meet the requirements  for an environmental  assessment in the
          regulation published by EPA, "Preparation of Environmental Impact
          Statements" (reference a).

     7.2  Facility Planning and the Environmental  Assessment

          The facility plan should contain  sufficient information  to meet the
     requirements for an environmental assessment in reference a.   Environmental
     considerations should be addressed during each step of the facility planning
     process.  A separate section of the plan, however,  should summarize environ-
     mental considerations.

     7.3  Environmental Impact Statements

          The Regional Administrator may determine while the facility plan is
     in preparation or after  it is completed and  submitted to EPA for approval
     that the project is highly controversial or may have  significant adverse
     environmental effects.   EPA will prepare an  environmental impact statement
     in these cases in accordance with the regulation,  "Preparation of Environ-
     mental Impact Statements"  (reference a).  The applicant may be asked to
     provide supplemental  information on the project to assist with preparation
     of the Environmental  Impact Statement.
-------
                                    25

     7.4  Environmental  Considerations

          The facility plan should contain a summary of environmental
     considerations.   The summary should include references to other portions
     of the plan where these considerations are discussed in more detail.

          The following are the major topics to be discussed in the summary:

          a.   Description of the existing environment without the project
          (see Section 4.2.2 in this Guidance).

          b.   Description of the future environment without the project
          (see Section 4.3.5).

          c.   Evaluation of alternatives (see Section 4.4.4).

          d.   Environmental impacts of the proposed action, including steps
          to minimize adverse effects (see Section 4.5.2).
8.   PLAN SELECTION

     8.1  Introduction

          This chapter discusses the principal considerations for selecting
     a plan.  It assumes that each of the alternatives being compared would,
     if implemented, result in compliance with all the applicable regulatory
     requirements (i.e., effluent limitations, load allocations, compliance
     schedules, and so forth).

     8.2  Comparison and Ranking of Proposals

          Plan selection will involve making choices among alternatives based
     on a display of the significant costs, effects and benefits of each.
     Common units are lacking for measuring environmental, social., economic
     and other costs, and therefore selection of the most cost-effective
     alternative requires careful judgment.
-------
                               Z6

     Figure 1  provides  an  example of  how costs  and  effects may  be  dis-
played.   The effects  should be listed,  wherever possible,  in  quantitative
terms, and be based on  the supporting analysis  elsewhere  in the plan.
Where quantification  is not possible, the comparison  should be  made  by
brief narrative description.

     The alternatives may  be ranked after they  are  displayed  to aid  final
selection of a plan.

     The following are suggestions on the ranking  procedure:

     a.    Environmental effects:   All significant  primary and secondary
     effects should be weighed to derive a value judgment as  to the  net
     overall effect of each alternative relative to other plans.  Alter-
     natives which have secondary effects with  a high potential for  con-
     travening an environmental or land-use statute or regulation, or
     plan imposed by  such  statute or  regulation should be ranked below
     those which do not.

     b.    Monetary costs:   Total  costs  should be the primary  factor  in
     determining the  cost-effectiveness of the  plan.

     c.    Implementation capability:  The ability  of and  agreement among
     the State, regional and local governmental units or  management
     agencies to implement the alternatives should be weighed carefully.
     The necessary institutions must  exist or be created  in  time to  carry
     out the plan, and the local  governmental unit must be capable of
     bearing the local share of the costs.

     d.    Other considerations:  Each plan must meet applicable regulatory
     requirements, and design and reliability criteria.  Performance
     better than these minimal standards should not be taken  into account
     when selecting an alternative unless environmental and monetary costs
     and benefits, and the feasibility of implementing the alternatives
     are roughly equal.  Other considerations,  in  other words, may be used
     to break ties.

          These other  considerations include the contribution  to water
     quality objectives beyond regulatory requirements, reliability,
     use of resources  and  energy, and public acceptability.
-------
                                      27

                                  Figure  1

                 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

                                                        PROPOSALS

                                              A         B

1.   Environmental  Effects

     a.   Primary
     b.   Secondary

2.   Monetary Costs

     a.   Capital costs

         1.  public
         2.  total

     b.   0 & M costs

c.
d.

1. public
2. total

Net revenue (public)
Average annual costs
1. public
2. total

     Implementation Capability

     a.  Institutional
     b.  Financial
     c.  Legal

     Other considerations

     a.  Contributions to Water Quality
         Objectives and Other Water Management Goals

     b.  Energy and Resources Use

         1.  Energy (power)
         2.  Chemicals
         3.  Land commitment for planned features

     c.  Reliability

         1.  Frequency of plant upsets
         2.  Frequency of spills
         3.  Frequency of effects of combined
             sewer overflows
-------
                                    28

9.    FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF  PLAN

     9.1   Outline of Plan

          The following outline for the plan  is  suggested.   It meets the require-
     ments of the Construction Grants regulation (Appendix  B)  and follows the
     planning steps presented  in this guidance.   Items inapplicable to a
     specific case may be deleted.

     1.    SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND  RECOMMENDATIONS

     2.    INTRODUCTION

          2.1  Study Purpose and Scope
          2.2  Planning Area (Map)

     3.    EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS (Section 4.1)

     4.    CURRENT SITUATION (Section 4.2)

          4.1  Conditions in Planning Area

               4.1.1  Planning area description
               4.1.2  Organizational context
               4.1.3  Demographic and land-use data
               4.1.4  Water quality and uses
               4.1.5  Other environmental conditions

          4.2  Existing Wastewater Flows and  Treatment Systems
          4.3  Infiltration and Inflow
          4.4  Performance of Existing  System

     5.    FUTURE SITUATION (Section 4.3)

          5.1  Land Use
          5.2  Demographic and Economic Projections
          5.3  Forecast of Flow and Waste Load
          5.4  Future Environment of the Planning Area Without the Project

     6.    ALTERNATIVES  (Section 4.4)

          6.1  Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
          6.2  Regional Solutions
          6.3  Waste Treatment Systems
          6.4  Evaluation  (monetary, environmental, implementation)

     7.    PLAN SELECTION  (Section 4.5)

          7.1  Views of Public and  Concerned Interests on Alternatives
          7.2  Evaluation  and Ranking of Proposals
          7.3  Selected Plan  (major feature summary) and Reasons  for  Selection
          7.4  Environmental  Impacts of Selected  Plan
-------
                                29

 8.   COST ESTIMATES,  PRELIMINARY DESIGNS (Section 4.6)

      8.1   Description of Design, with Maps
      8.2  Summary of  Cost Estimates

 9.   ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION (Section 4.7)

      9.1   Institutional  Responsibilities
      9.2  Implementation Steps
      9.3  Operation and  Maintenance
      9.4  Financial Requirements

10.   SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS (Section 7)

      10.1  Existing Environmental Conditions
      10.2  Future Environment Without the Project
      10.3  Evaluation of Alternatives
      10.4  Environmental Effects of Selected Plan

 9.2  Appendices

      The following information, cross-referenced in the text of the
 plan, may be placed in appendices:

      a.   Preliminary designs, technical data and cost estimates for
      alternatives.

      b.   Agreements, resolutions and comments.

      c.   Supplemental engineering feasibility data on the details of
      the adopted plan.

      d.   Infiltration/inflow analyses.

      e.   Sewer evaluation surveys.

      f.   Copy of the permit for the facility.

      For a simple planning situation, the information included in items
 (a) and  (c) may be incorporated in the main report.

      The technical appendices  (item c above) should include, but not
 necessarily be limited to:

      a.   description of the configuration of collector and interceptor
      systems, profiles, sizes and cost breakdowns.

      b.   treatment plant data, including site plan, layouts of unit
      processes, flow charts, design and performance data.
-------
                                    30

10.   REVIEW, CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL  OF  PLANS

     10.1   Purpose

          This chapter describes the administrative procedures  and  requirements
     for submission of a facility plan (and  revisions thereof)  to State receiving
     agencies and to EPA.  It also describes the actions States and EPA take on
     the plan.

     10.2  Three Levels of Review

          The three levels of review of a facility plan are as  follows:

          a.   review by a clearinghouse of  interested agencies at the local
          level as required by Circular A-95, "Federal and Federally Assisted
          Programs and Projects", of the Federal Office of Management and
          Budget (reference z).

          b.   review by the State for compliance  with State requirements, and
          Federal statutory and regulatory requirements.

          c.   review by EPA for compliance  with Federal requirements.

     10.3  Compliance with OMB Circular A-95

          EPA will not conduct a final review of an application for a grant to
     conduct facility planning or completed  facility plans for approval unless
     the agency submitting the grant application or plan to the State and EPA
     has first complied with all applicable requirements of OMB Circular A-95
     (reference z).

     10.4  Submission to State

          The agency desiring review and approval  of a facility plan shall
     submit the following documents to the State Water Pollution Control
     Authority'or its equivalent:

          a.   Four (4)  copies of the facility  plan

          b.   Two  (2)  copies of all relevant documents required by OMB
          Circular A-95

          c.   One  (1) original and one  (1) copy of a  letter from  the  chief
          official of the agency preparing the  plan.   The letter should request
          review and approval and state:

               1.   that the agency has  met all requirements for public
               participation relating to the plan;

               2.   the  names of all jurisdictions within the  planning area
               which either oppose  the plan or  have  failed to  approve  the plan.
-------
                                31

10.5  Submission to EPA

     EPA will review for approval  only those facility plans  which have
received State approval and are properly submitted to the appropriate
regional office by the chief official  of the State Water Pollution Control
Authority having jurisdiction over the planning area.  The following docu-
ments should be submitted to EPA by the State:

     a.    a letter signed by the chief official  of the State Water Pollu-
     tion Control  Authority requesting review and approval,  and certifying
     that:

          1.   the plan conforms with the requirements of the construction
          grants regulation (Appendix B)

          2.   the plan conforms with the applicable basin plan prepared
          or being prepared in accordance with reference i.

          3.   the concerned areawide planning agency, if any, has been
          afforded the opportunity to comment on the plan, and the plan
          conforms with any completed areawide plan which has been approved
          in accordance with the requirements of section 208 of FWPCA.

     b.    Two (2) copies of the plan

     c.    One (1) copy of the letter from the local agency to the State
     required under paragraph 10.4 above.

10.6  Revisions to Plans

     Facility plan should be reviewed regularly and brought up to date
as required by changing conditions.  As a minimum, a facility plan which
has served as the basis for award of a Step 2 or 3 grant shall be reviewed
by the State prior to application for any subsequent Step 2 or 3 grant to
determine if substantial changes have occurred which warrant revision or
amendment of the plan.  The plan should then be revised or amended as
necessary.

     Revisions to the plan should be accompanied by a statement on the
status of implementation of the plan as of the date of the revision.  The
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator, A-95 Clearinghouse, and State
should be notified at least 30 days in advance of initiating a modification
to a plan.  Processing of revised plans will follow the procedures as
outlined above.

10-7  EPA Review

     The review by EPA will ascertain that the requirements of FWPCA and
applicable amendments are met, including specific determination that:

     a.    the plan is consistent with existing State and NPDES permits.
-------
                               32

     b.    the  plan  is consistent with the requirements of the applicable
     final  plan  prepared under reference i, "Preparation of Water
     Quality Management Basin Plans."

     c.    the  plan  is consistent with any completed areawide plan approved
     in  accordance  with section 208 of  FWPCA.

     d.    all  requirements  for public participation have been met.

     e.    the  plan  will provide for secondary treatment, as a minimum, as
     well  as appropriate application of Best Practicable Waste Treatment
     Technology  in  accordance with technical criteria established by  EPA,
     or  for more stringent  treatment levels required to meet water quality
     standards.

     f.    the  plan  is cost-effective and environmentally sound.

     g.    excessive infiltration/inflow does not  exist, or that  a detailed
     sewer evaluation survey and necessary  sewer  rehabilitation  measures
     will  be accomplished  in accordance with the  Construction Grants  regu-
     lation (Appendix B).

     h.    implementation of the plan is institutionally feasible within
     the time  period proposed.

     i.    the  plan  is compatible with facility  plans and completed and
     approved  areawide  plans developed  for  contiguous areas of other  States.

     j.    the  plan  includes an  adequate  environmental assessment.

     k.    the  treatment works will  comply with  applicable  requirements  of
     the Clean Air  Act  and other applicable environmental  laws and
     regulations.

10.8  EPA Approval

     The EPA Regional Administrator has authority to  approve  any facility
plan submitted to him by a State within his region.

     After review of a  properly submitted  plan  or amendment  and  compliance
with the requirements of the  National  Environmental  Policy Act  (see
reference a),  the EPA Regional  Administrator'will notify  the  chief official
of the appropriate  State Water Pollution  Control  Authority of his  concurrence
and approval,  or the EPA regional  office  will  work closely with  the  State to
provide advice to the municipality on  how the plan may be improved so that
approval will  be possible.
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
-------
                          APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
A.I   FEDERAL REGULATIONS
     a.    40 CFR Part 6,  "Preparation  of  Environmental  Impact Statements,"
     Federal Register.  Vol.  40,  No.  72, April 14, 1975, pp. 16811-16827

     b.    40 CFR Part 35,  Subpart  B,  "State and Local Assistance", Federal
     Register. Vol.  38, No.  125, June  29,  1973, pp. 17219-27225

     c.    40 CFR Part 35,  Subpart  E,  "Grants  for Construction of Treatment
     Works—Federal  Water  Pollution  Control Act Amendments of 1972", Federal
     Register, Vol.  39, No.  29,  February  11,  1974,  pp.  5252-5270

     d.    40 CFR Part 35,  Subpart  E, Appendix A "Cost Effectiveness Analysis
     Guidelines", Federal  Register,  Vol.  38,  No. 174, September 10, 1973, pp.
     24639-24640

     e.    40 CFR Part 35,  Subpart  E, Appendix B "User Charges and  Industrial
     Cost Recovery", Federal Register, Vol.  38, No. 161, August 21, 1973, pp
     22524-22527

     f.    40 CFR Part 105, "Public Participation in Water  Pollution Control",
     Federal Register, Vol.  38,  No.  163,  August 23, 1973,  pp. 22756-22758

     g.    40 CFR Part 128, "Pretreatment  Standards", Federal Register.  Vol. 38,
     No. 215, November 8,  1973,  pp.  30982-30984

     h.    40 CFR Part 130, "Policies and  Procedures for State Continuing
     Planning Process", Federal  Register. Vol.  39,  No.  107, June  3, 1974, pp.
     19634-19639

     i.    40 CFR Part 131, "Preparation of Water Quality Management Basin
     Plans", Federal Register. Vol.  39, No.  107, June  3, 1974,  pp. 19639-19644

     j.    40 CFR Part 133, "Secondary Treatment Information", Federal  Register.
     Vol. 38, No. 159, August 17,  1973, pp.  22298-22299.

     k.    40 CFR Part 220-227,  "Ocean Dumping,  Final  Regulations  and  Criteria",
     Federal Register. Vol. 38,  No.  198,  October  15,  1973, pp.  28609-28621.

     1.    18 CFR 704.39,  "Discount Rate", Federal  Register, Vol.  39,  No.  158,
     August 14, 1974,  p.  29242.    (Published annually  under this title by  U.S.
     Water  Resources Council)

     m.   50 CFR Part  17, "Conservation of Endangered  Species and Other Fish
     or Wildlife",  Federal Register, Vol. 39, No.  3.,  January 4,  1974,
     pp. 1171-1177
-------
A.2  EPA DOCUMENTS

      o.  "Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable
      Waste Treatment", Technical Information Report, U.S. EPA, March 1974

      p.  "Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and
      Component Reliability, Technical Bulletin, EPA-430-99-74-001

      q.  "Design, Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Faci-
      lities", Technical Bulletin, U.S. EPA, September 1970

      r.  "EPA Policy to Protect the Nation's Wetlands", Administrators
      Decision Statement No. 4, Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 84,  p. 10834

      s.  "Evaluation of Land Application Systems", Technical  Bulletin,
      EPA-430/9-75-001, March 1975

      t.  "Guidance for Sewer System Evaluation", U.S. EPA, March 1974

      u.  "Guidelines for the Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans",
      EPA, September 1974

      v.  "Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for
      Wastewater Treatment Works, Facilities Plans, and 208 Areawide Waste
      Treatment Management Plans", U.S. EPA, July 1974

      w.  "Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of Wastewater", EPA-
      430/9-73-006, July 1973

      x.  Water Quality Strategy Paper, second edition, "A Statement of
      Policy for Implementing the Requirements of the 1972 Federal  Water
      Pollution Control Act Amendments and Certain Requirements of  the 1972
      Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act", U.S. EPA, March 1974

      y.  "Protection of Shellfish Waters," Technical Bulletin, EPA 430/9-74-010,
      July 1974.

NOTE:   A copy of the references listed in A.I and A.2 may be obtained from
        the Regional Offices listed in Appendix C.

A.3   CIRCULARS, AND MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS

      z.  OMB Circular A-95, "Federal and Federally Assisted Programs and
      Projects, " Federal Register, Vol 38., No. 228, November 28,  1973

      aa.  Grant, E.L. and Ireson, W.G., Principles of Engineering  Economy,
      5th Edition, New York:  Ronald Press, 1970.

      bb.  James, L.D., and Lee, R., Economics of Water Resources.  New York:
      McGraw-Hill, 1971
-------
     APPENDIX B -  CONSTRUCTION GRANT REGULATION
(See Section I,  Regulation No.  I-T,  "Water Pollution Control,
 Construction Grants for Waste  Treatment," issued by the U.  S.
 Environmental  Protection Agency.)
-------
APPENDIX C - LIST OF REGIONAL OFFICES
-------
                              APPENDIX C
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts  02203
Environmental  Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson Street
Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas  75201
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
Room 908
New York, New York  10007
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri  64108
Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19106
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Suite 900
Denver, Colorado  80203
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia  30309
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California
San Francisco,
Street
California  94111
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington  98101
-------
GUIDANCE FOR
      SEWER SYSTEM
       EVALUATION

         MARCH 1974
-------
                              Guidance For
                         Sewer System Evaluation
                            Table of Contents



                                                           Page Number

1.0  INTRODUCTION                                              1


2.0  INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS                              1


3.0  SEWER SYSTEM EVALUATION SURVEY                            4


     3.1  Physical Survey                                      5


     3.2  Rainfall Simulation                                  5


     3.3  Preparatory Cleaning                                 6


     3.4  Internal Inspection                                  6


     3.5  Survey Report                                        7


APPENDIX


     Rules and Regulations, 40 CFR Part 35, Excerpts           9
-------
1.0  INTRODUCTION
     Extraneous water from infiltration/inflow sources  reduces  the  capability
of sewer systems and treatment facilities to transport  and treat  domestic
and industrial wastewaters.  Infiltration occurs  when existing  sewer  lines
undergo material and joint degradation and deterioration as well  as when new
sewer lines are poorly designed and constructed.   Inflow normally occurs when
rainfall enters the sewer system through direct connections such  as roof
leaders and catch basins.   The elimination of infiltration/inflow by  sewer
system rehabilitation can often substantially reduce the cost of  wastewater
collection and treatment.   However, a logical and systematic evaluation of
the sewer system 1s necessary to determine the cost-effectiveness of any
sewer system rehabilitation to eliminate infiltration/inflow.
     The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 require that
after July 1, 1973, all applicants for treatment  works  grants must  demonstrate
that each sewer system discharging into the treatment works is  not  subject  to
excessive infiltration/inflow.  The requirement was  implemented in  the Rules
and Regulations for Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation, 40  CFR 35.927
(pages 9 and 10).
     This document is intended to provide engineers, municipalities,  and regula-
tory agencies with guidance on sewer system evaluation.
2.0  INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS
     The infiltration/inflow analysis should provide the information necessary to
establish the non-existence or possible existence of excessive  infiltration/inflow
in the sewer system(s) and justify any proposed sewer  system evaluation survey.
-------
     The analysis should include each  sewer system tributary to  tne
treatment works project.  The sewer system(s)  should not be limited  by
political jurisdictions or sewer types.   The treatment works grant applicant
is responsible for the entire sewer system evaluation and any rehabilitation
to eliminate excessive infiltration/inflow.  The sewer system included in
the evaluation should originate at the wastewater sources, such  as com-
mercial buildings or private residences, and terminate at the wastewater
facility.
     The estimated flow rates of infiltration/inflow, infiltration and
inflow entering the sewer system should  be stated in the analysis.  The
following diagram identifies these terms:

                   INFILTRATION/INFLOW IDENTIFICATION  (IDEALIZED]
                     BYPASSES AND
                      OVERFLOWS
1
INF
i
t
INFILTRATION
/INFLOW
LOW
y .
I m
INFILTRATION PL
J
DOMESTIC
AND
INDUSTRIAL
1
TAL
OW
                        TIME
                 LE6END
                	  FLOWS INCLUDING  INFILTRATION/INFLOW
                	  FLOWS NOT INCLUDING INFILTRATION/INFLOW
-------
     The difference between the maximum domestic and industrial  flow rate and
total flow rate would represent the total inftltration/inflow entering the
sewer system.  The difference between the maximum domestic and industrial
flow rate and the maximum flow rate during periods of high ground water
(with no rainfall) normally represents the infiltration entering the sewer
system.  The amount of flow increase during storm events (including bypasses and
overflows) normally represents the inflow entering the sewer system.
     Data sources for the analysis should include maps, operation and maintenance
records, observations by past and present municipal employees, and previous
engineering reports.   When complete flow records are not available, estimated
flow rates may be computed from observed flow depths.  Data presented in the
analysis does  not have to be based on absolute measurements.  A physical
examination of key manholes is normally conducted to obtain data for the analysis.
     Estimated flow data should be related to rainfall intensity or other pertinent
data.  A rainfall and sewage flow hydrograph should be included in the analysis.
Each bypassed flow and when possible overflows should be identified by location,
cause, duration, quantity, frequency, rate and method of discharge from the
system.
     The total domestic and industrial wastewater flow rates and their relationship
to water consumption plus the domestic wastewater flow per capita should be stated
in the analysis.
     A general description of the geographical and geological characteristics of
the area served by the sewer system should be presented in the analysis.  This
description should include soil types, topography, rainfall data, known ground
water levels and other pertinent information.
     The general discussion of a sewer system in the analysis should include: the
type of sewer system, i.e. sanitary or combined sewers; the known methods of sewer
construction; the maximum, minimum, and average depth of the sewers; major known
-------
sources of inflow; the structural  condition,  operation and maintenance practices,
amount and type of deposits,  degree of root  intrusion, and other  pertinent sewer
system information; plus an evaluation of the probability of  future decreases or
increases in the quantities of infiltration/inflow.
     A comparison of the cost estimates for  transportation and  treatment of the
infiltration/inflow versus  correction  of the infiltration/inflow  is normally
sufficient to determine if  infiltration/inflow is  non-excessive or possibly
excessive.  Treatment costs should be  based  on achieving the  effluent limitations
that are or will be included  in the NPDES permit(s)  for discharges from the
system.
     When a sewer system has  bypasses  or overflows due to combined sewers and
there is or will be no control or treatment  required of the bypasses or over-
flows in the NPDES permit,  treatment costs should  be based on treatment of the
total flow minus the bypasses or overflows attributable to the  combined sewer
inflow.  In those cases where control  or treatment of combined  sewer bypasses
or overflows is required, the cost-effectiveness analysis should  be based on
control or treatment of the total  flow in the system.  In all instances, the
excessive infiltration should be elimtnated  from the entire sewer system tn-
cluding the combined sewer portions.
     Infiltration/inflow correction cost estimates should include the costs of
an evaluation survey, sewer system rehabilitation, and  transportation and treat-
ment of the infiltration/inflow not eliminated by  rehabilitation.
3.0  SEWER SYSTEM EVALUATION  SURVEY
     The sewer system evaluation survey is a systematic examination of  the
sewer system to determine the specific location, flow rate and  rehabilitation
-------
costs of the infiltration/inflow problem.  The following approach is designed
to avoid overstudy of the infiltration/inflow problem, including unnecessary
sewer cleaning and internal inspection.  Each phase of the evaluation survey
is supported by the preceding phase.
     The evaluation survey is normally divided into five consecutive phases:
(1)  physical survey, (2)  rainfall simulation, (3)  preparatory cleaning,
(4)  internal inspection, and (5) survey report.   However, in certain situa-
tions, it will be possible to acquire the desired information and results more
economically by combining or eliminating certain phases of the survey.  The
physical survey and rainfall simulation phases may provide sufficient data
to determine the existence or non-existence of excessive infiltration/inflow.
In such cases, the cleaning and internal inspection phases could be eliminated.

3.1 Physical Survey
     The first phase of the sewer system evaluation survey should be a physical
survey to determine the flow characteristics, ground water levels and physical
conditions of the sewer system.
     In the first step of the physical survey, flow characteristics, and, if
infiltration is a problem, ground water levels at key manholes in the sewer
system are determined.  Evaluation of this data would enable identification
of segments of the sewer system requiring further study.  In certain instances,
the study area for the sewer system can be determined from data acquired during
the infiltration/inflow analysis.
     The second step of the physical survey should be an examination of each
manhole in the study area to determine the actual physical condition of the
^ewer system.  This examination involves a physical lamping of each pipeline
-------
connected to the manholes.   This  data  should  aid  in the  identification of
infiltration/inflow sources  and provide  a  factual base for any sewer cleaning.

3.2  Rainfall  Simulation
     The second phase of the evaluation  survey  should be rainfall simulations
to identify sections of sewer lines which  have  infiltration/inflow conditions
during periods of rainfall.
     Dyed water flooding of  storm sewer  sections  which parallel or cross sanitary
sewer sections (including service connections)  and  have  crown elevations greater
than the invert elevations of the sanitary sewers is a method of  conducting  the
rainfall simulation phase.   Stream sections,  ditch  sections, and  ponding areas
located near or above sanitary sewer sections should be  dyed Water flooded to
identify other sources of infiltration/inflow.  The downstream sanitary man-
hole is monitored for evidence of dyed water.  The  observed presence,  concentra-
tion, and travel time of the dyed water  into  the  sanitary sewer can be correlated
with the soil  types to obtain an  estimate  of  the  sources and quantities of
infiltration/inflow.  If the sewer system  does  not  contain water  traps or sagged
lines, smoke testing could be used to  identify  connections from catch  basins,
roof leaders,  yard drains and area drains.
3.3  Preparatory Cleaning
     The third phase of the  evaluation survey should be  the preparatory  cleaning
of selected sewer lines to provide for unobstructed internal  inspection.  The
selection of sewer sections  for internal inspection is determined by  analysis
of the data from the physical survey  and rainfall simulation  phases.   Selected
sewer sections should have obvious potential  for  excessive  infiltration/inflow
and warrant the necessary preparatory  cleaning and internal inspection.
-------
3.4  Internal  Inspection
     The fourth phase of the evaluation survey should  be  the  internal  inspection
of selected sections of the sewer system.   This phase  should  determine the
specific location, condition, estimated flow rate,  and cost of rehabilitation
for each source of infiltration/inflow defined in  the  selected sections.  A
descriptive record of all structural  defects, service  connections,  abnormal
conditions and other pertinent observations should  be  obtained during  the
inspection.  The source of service connection flows should be identified.
An estimated flow rate is determined  for each infiltration/inflow source.
     Internal  inspection for infiltration conditions is normally conducted
during periods of maximum ground water levels.  One exception to this  pro-
cedure is when the sewer is located above the maximum ground  water  level.  All
storm sewers sections, stream sections, ditch sections, and ponding areas
related to the infiltration/inflow conditions are  normally flooded  during
the internal inspection.
     The method used for internal inspection of sewer sections should  be the
best and most cost-effective method of obtaining the necessary information.
Television is an acceptable method of obtaining the necessary information.
Inspection of large sewers may be accomplished by  actual  observation.   Photo-
graphs or video tapes of infiltration/inflow sources can  be used to support
the field data.
3.5  Survey Report
     The final phase of the evaluation survey should be a survey report of the
data gathered during the survey, plus a justification for each sewer section
cleaned and internally inspected, (costs not justified will be unallowable
grant costs) and a proposed rehabilitation program to eliminate all defined
excessive infiltration/inflow.

                              7
-------
     Each source of infiltration/inflow  found during the survey should be
identified in the report by  specific  "location, condition, flow rate, method
and cost of rehabilitation,  and  cost  of  transportation and treatment.  An
infiltration/inflow source should  be  proposed for  rehabilitation if the
rehabilitation cost does not exceed the  cost of transportation and treat-
ment.
     Rehabilitation costs for an infiltration/inflow source should be based
on the most cost-effective method  of  rehabilitation.   (Several sources in
a sewer segment between two  consecutive  manholes could be combined to achieve
this  objective.)  Methods of rehabilitation can include:   (1)  replacement
of sewer sections or service connections;  (2)   insertion of sewer liners;
(3)  internal or external pressure grouting with chemical sealants;  (4)   re-
moval or plugging of inflow  connections; (5)  manhole  grouting; and  (6)   re-
placement, elevating and/or  sealing of manhole  covers.   Cement mortar grouting
is not an effective method of rehabilitation except  for  manholes.  Chemical
sealants used for pressure grouting should have the  demonstrated capability
to eliminate infiltration under similar  soil and sewer conditions.   When
pressure grouting is the selected method of rehabilitation, the estimated
cost for the chemical sealant must be included  in  the  rehabilitation costs.
     When the sewer system contains a portion of combined sewers, the major
sources of inflow in the sanitary sewer portions  tributary  to the combined
sewer portions, such as cross connections from  storm sewers,  yard and area
drains, roof leaders, manhole covers  and catch  basins  should  be proposed  for
rehabilitation.  If control  or treatment is or  will  be required for  bypasses  or
overflows in the NPDES permit, the remaining inflow  sources  in  the sewer
system should be proposed for rehabilitation if the  cost of rehabilitation
does not exceed the cost of transportation and  treatment.
                                   8
-------
              EXCERPTS

    Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
          SUBCHAPTER B—GRANTS
      PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
              ASSISTANCE
    Final Construction Grant Regulations

 § 35.905-5 Excetiive infiltration/inflow.
   The quantities of  Infiltration/inflow
 which can be economically  eliminated
 from a sewer system by rehabilitation, as
 determined by a cost-effectiveness anal-
 ysis that compares the costs for correct-
 ing  the   Infiltration/inflow  conditions
 with the  total costs for transportation
 and treatment of the infiltration/inflow,
 subject to the provisions In i 35.927.
 135.905-9  Infiltration.
   The water ents ring a sewer system,
 including   sewer  service   connections,
 from the ground, through such means as,
 but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe
 joints, connections, or manhole walls In-
 filtration  does not Include, and  is dis-
 tinguished from, Inflow.
 § 35.905-10  Infiltration/inflow.
  The total quantity of water from both
 infiltration and  inflow without  distin-
 guishing the source.
 §35.905-11   Inflow.
  The water  discharged into a  sewer
•ystem, including  service  connections
from such sources as,  but not limited to,
roof  leaders,  cellar,   yard,   and—area
drains, foundation drains, cooling water
discharges,  drains from  springs  and
swampy areas,  manhole covers,  cross
connections from storm sewers and com-
bined sewers, catch basins, storm waters,
surface run-off, street wash waters, or
drainage.  Inflow  does  not  Include, and
is  distinguished from, infiltration.

 g 35.905-18  Saniury «ew+r.
   A sewer intended to carry  only sani-
 tary  or sanitary and industrial waste
 waters from  residences,  commercial
 buildings. Industrial plants, and institu-
 tions.

 § 35.905—22  Slorni fewer.
  A sewer intended to carry only storm
 waters, surface  run-off,  street  wash
 waters, and drainage.

 § 35.905-2  Combined sewer.
   A sewer intended to serve as a sanitary
 sewer and a  storm sewer, or ELS an in-
 dustrial sewer and a storm sewer.
 § 35.927   Sewer system evaluation  and
     rehabilitation.
   (a)  All applicants for grant assistance
 awarded after July 1, 1973. must demon-
 strate to the satisfaction of the Regional
 Administrator that each  sewer  system
 discharging  into  the treatment  works
 project for which grant application  Is
 made  Is not  or  will not be subject to
 excessive Infiltration/inflow. The deter-
 mination  whether  excessive   Infiltra-
 tion/inflow exists, may take into account,
 In  addition  to  flow and  related data,
 other  significant  factors such as cost-
       RUIES AND REGULATIONS
effectiveness  (including the cost of sub-
stantial  treatment works  construction
delay, see Appendix A to this subpart),
public health emergencies, the effects of
plant bypassing or overloading,  or rele-
vant economic or environmental factors.

   (b) The determination whether or not
excessive infiltration/inflow .exists will
generally  be  accomplished  through  a
sewer system evaluation consisting of (1)
certification by the State ngency. as  ap-
propriate;  and,  when  necessary <2> an
infiltration/inflow analysis; and, if  ap-
propriate,  (3) a sewer system evaluation
survey followed by rehabilitation of the
sewer system to eliminate an excessive
infiltration/inflow defined  in  the  sewer
syst»m   evaluation. Information  sub-
mitted to the Regional Administrator for
such determination should be the  mini-
mum necessary  to enable a judgment to
be made.
   (c) Guidelines on sewer system evalu-
ation published  by the Administrator
provide further advisory Information.
§ 35.927-1   Infillration/Inflow  analysis.
   (a)  The inflltratlon/hiflow  analysis
shall  demonstrate the non-existence or
possible  existence of excessive  Infiltra-
tion/inflow In each sewer system tribu-
tary  to  the  treatment  works.  The
analysis  should  identify the presence,
flow rate, and type of infiltration/Inflow
conditions, which exist In the sewer sys-
tems. Information to  be obtained and
evaluated in the analysis should include,
to the extent appropriate, the following:
   (1) Estimated flow data at the treat-
ment facility,  all significant overflows
and bypasses, and, if necessary,  flows at
key points  within the sewer system.
   (2) Relationship of  existing  popula-
tion and industrial contribution to flows
in the sewer system.
   (3) Geographical and geological con-
ditions which may affect the present and
future flow rates or correction costs for
the infiltration/inflow.
   (4) A  discussion of  age,  length, type,
materials  of  construction and known
physical condition of the sewer system.
   (b) For  determination of the possible
existence^of excessive Infiltration/inflow,
the analysis shall include an estimate of
the cost  of eliminating the Infiltration/
Inflow conditions. These costs shall be
compared with estimated total costs for
transportation  and treatment  of  the
infiltration/inflow.    Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis  Guidelines (Appendix A to this
subpart), which contain advisory infor-
mation, should be consulted with respect
to this determination.
  (c)  If  the  infiltration/inflow  analysis
demonstrates  the  existence or  possible
existence of excessive infiltration/inflow
a detailed plan for a sewer system evalu-
ation survey  shall be  included in  the
analysis.  The  plan shall outline the tasks
to be performed In the survey and their
estimated costs.
§ 35.927—2  Sewer   system  evaluation
    survey.
  (a)  The  sewer system evaluation sur-
vey shall consist of a systematic exami-
nation of the sewer systems to determine
the specific location, estimated flow rate,
method of rehabilitation and cost of re-
habilitation versus cost of transportation
and treatment for  each defined source
of Infiltration/inflow.
   (b) The results of the sewer system
 eva!\.at'on  survey  shall be summarized
 in a re»-;pou Uiali
 include:
   (1) A justification for each sewer sec-
 tion cle-ned and Internally inspected.
   (2) A proposed rehabilitation program
 for  the sewer systems to eliminate all de-
 fined excessive infiltration/inflow.
 § 35.927-3  Rehabilitation.
   (a) The scope of each treatment works
 project defined within the Facilities Plan
 as being required for implementation of
 the  Plan, and for which Federal assist-
 ance will be requested, shall define  (1)
 any necessary new treatment works con-
 struction,  and  (2)  any  rehabilitation
 work determined by the  sewer system
 evaluation to be necessary for the elimi-
 nation  of  excessive  Infiltration/Inflow.
 However, rehabilitation which should be
 a part of the applicant's normal opera-
 tion and  maintenance responsibilities
 shall not be Included within the scope
 of a Step 3 treatment works project.
   (b) Grant assistance for  a  Step 3
 project segment consisting of rehabilita-
 tion work may be awarded concurrently
 with Step 2 work for the  design of the
 new treatment works construction.
 §35.927-4   Sewer use ordinance.
   Each applicant for grant assistance for
 a Step 2, Step 3, or combination Steps 2
 and  3 project shall demonstrate to the
 satisfaction of the Regional Administra-
 tor that  a server use  ordinance or other
 legally binding requirement  will be en-
 acted and enforced in each jurisdiction
 served by  the treatment works  project
 before the  completion of  construction.
 The  ordinance shall  prohibit  any new
 connections from inflow sources into the
 sanitary sewer portions of the sewer sys-
 tem  and shall  ensure that new sewers
 and  connections to the sewer system are
 properly designed and constructed.
 § 35.927-5   Project procedures.
   (a)  State  certification.  The -State
 agency may (but need not) certify that
 excessive infiltration/inflow does or does
 not  exist.  The Regional Administrator
will determine that excessive infiltration/
 inflow does not exist on the basis of State
certification, if he finds that the State
had  adequately established the basis for
its certification  through submission  of
 only the minimum information necessary
to enable a judgment to be made. Such
 information could include a preliminary
 review by the applicant or State, for ex-
ample, of such parameters as per capita
design flow, ratio of flow, to design flow,
flow  records or flow estimates, bypasses
 or overflows, or  summary  analysis  of
hydrological, geographical,  and geologi-
 cal conditions, but this review would not
usually  be  equivalent to a complete
 infiltration/inflow analysis.  State  cer-
tification must be on a proJect-by-project
 basis. If the Regional Administrator de-
 termines on the basis of State certifica-
 tion  that the treatment works is or may
 1 j  subject  to  excessive  infiltration/
 inflow, no Step 2  or Step 3 grant assist-
 ance may be awarded except as provided
 in paragraph (c) of this section.
   (b) Pre-award sewer system  evalua-
 tion. Generally, except as otherwise pro-
 vided in paragraph (c) of this section, an
 adequate  sewer system evaluation, con-
 sisting of a sewer system analysis and, if
                              FEDERAL kEGISTEl, VOL. 39, NO. 29—MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11,  1974


                                                            9
-------
required, an evaluation survey, is an es-
sential element of Step 1 facilities plan-
Bins and is a prerequisite to the award of
St-jp s  or 3  grant a^iistance.  Ii  the
liegional   Administrator   determines
through  State Certification or an In-
filtration/Inflow  analysis that excessive
Infiltration/inflow  does  not exist. Step
2 or 3 grant assistance may be awarded.
If on the basis of  State certification or
the infiltration/inflow analysis, the  Re-
gional  Administrator determines  that
possible excessive infiltration/inflow ex-
ists, an adequate sewer system evaluation
survey  and. if required,  a rehabilitation
program must be furnished, except as set
forth in paragraph (c) of this section
before  grant assistance  for Step 2 or 3
can be awarded. A Step 1 grant may be
awarded for the completion of this seg-
ment of Step 1 work, and, upon comple-
tion of Step 1, grant assistance for a Step
2 or 3 project (for which priority has been
determined pursuant to 535.915) may
be awarded.
  (c) Exception. In the event it is deter-
mined  by the Regional  Administrator
that the treatment works would  be re-
garded (in the absence of an acceptable
program of correction)  as being subject
to excessive or possible excessive infiltra-
tion/inflow,   grant assistance  may be
awarded provided that the applicant es-
tablishes to  the  satisfaction of the Re-
gional Administrator that the treatment
works project for which grant application
is made will not  be significantly changed
by any  subsequent rehabilitation  pro-
gram or will be a component part of any
rehabilitated system: Provided, That the
applicant agrees to complete  the sewer
system evaluation and any resulting re-
habilitation   on   an  implementation
schedule  the State  accepts (subject  to
approval by the Regional Administra-
tor) , which schedule shall be inserted as
a special condition in the grant agree-
ment.  Compliance  with  this  schedule
shall be accomplished pursuant to $ 35.-
935-16 and 8 30.304 of this chapter.
   (d) Municipalities may submit the In-
filtration/inflow analysis  and when ap-
propriate the sewer system evaluation
survey, through the State agency, to the
Regional Administrator for his review at
any time prior to application for a treat-
ment works  grant. Based on such a re-
view, the Regional Administrator shall
provide the municipality with a written
response indicating either  his  concur-
rence  or nonconcurrence. The Regional
Administrator must concur  with  the
sewer system evaluation survey plan be-
fore the work is  performed for the survey
to be an allowable cost.
§ 35.920-3   Contents of application.
   (a) Step 1. Facilities plan and related
elements required  to apply for Step  2
grant  assistance. An application for  u,
grant for Step 1 shall include:
   (1) A plan of  study presenting (i) the
proposed planning  area; (11) an identi-
fication of the entity or  entities that will
be  conducting the planning; (ill)  the
nature and scope of the proposed Step 1
project,  including  a schedule for the
completion of specific tasks; and (iv) an
itemized  description of the estimated
costs for the projecs;
   (2) Proposed subagreements, or an ex-
planation of the   Intended method  of
awarding subagreements for perform-
ance of  any substantial portion  of the
project work;
     RULES AND  REGULATIONS

  (3) Required comments or approvals of
relevant State, local, and Federal agen-
cies  (including "clearinghouse" require-
ments  of  OMB Circular A-95. promul-
gated at 38 FR  32874 on November 28,
1973).
  (b) Step 2. Preparation of construction
drawings and specifications. Prior to the
award  of  a grant or grant amendment
for a Step 2 project, the following must
have been furnished:
  (1) A facilities plan (including an en-
vironmental assessment in accordance
with Part 6 of this chapter)  In accord-
ance with 55 35.917 through 35.917-9.
  (2) Satisfactory evidence of compli-
ance with the user charge provisions of
19 35.925-11 and 35.935-13;
  (3) Satisfactory evidence  of compli-
ance with the industrial cost recovery
provisions  of  $935.925-12, 35.928, and
35.935-13. if applicable;
  (4) A statement regarding availability
of the  proposed  site, if relevant;
  (5) Satisfactory  evidence  of a  pro-
posed or existing program for compliance
with the Relocation and Land Acquisi-
tion  Policies Act of 1970 in accordance
with 9 30.403 (d)  and Part 4 of this chap-
ter, if applicable:
  (6) Satisfactory  evidence  of compli-
ance with other applicable Federal statu-
tory and  regulatory  requirements (see
Part 30, Subpart C of this chapter); -
  (7) Proposed subagreements or an ex-
planation of  the intended method  of
awarding  subagreements for  perform-
ance of any substantial portion of the
project work.
  (8) Required  comments or approvals
of relevant State, local,  and Federal
agencies (including "clearinghouse" re-
quirements of OMB Circular A-95) if  a
grant application has not been previously
submitted.
  (c) Step 3. Building and erection of  a
treatment works. Prior to the award ot a
grant or grant amendment for a Step 3
project, each  of  the items specified  in
paragraph (b) of this section, and in ad-
dition (i)  two sets of construction draw-
ings and specifications, suitable for bid-
ding purposes, and (2) a schedule for or
evidence of compliance with 19 35.925-10
and  35.935-12 concerning  an operation
and  maintenance program,  must  have
been furnished.
  (d) Step 2/3.  Design/Construct Proj-
ect.  Prior to the  award of a grant  or
grant amendment for a design/construct
project the items in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section must have been fur-
nished, except that, in lieu of construc-
tion  drawings and specifications, the pro-
posed  performance specifications  and
other relevant design/construct criteria
for the project must have been submitted.
§ 35.917-1  Content of Facilities Plan.
  Facilities planning which is initiated
after April 30, 1974, must encompass the
following  to the extent deemed appro-
priate by the Regional Administrator:
  (a) A description  of the  treatment
works  for which construction drawing*
and  specifications  are to  be prepared.
This description shall include prelimi-
nary engineering data, cost estimates for
design and construction of the treatment
works, and a schedule for completion of
design and construction. The preliminary
engineering data may Include, to the
extent appropriate, such information as
a schematic flow diagram, unit processes.
design data regarding detention times.
flow rates, sizing of units, etc.
  (b) A description of the selected com-
plete waste treatment system (s) of which
the proposed treatment works is a part.
The description shall cover all elements
of the system, from the service area and
collection sewers, through treatment, to
the ultimate discharge of treated waste-
waters and disposal of sludge.
  (c) Infiltration/inflow documentation
In accordance with 9 35.927.
   (d)  A  cost-effectiveness  analysis  of
alternatives for the treatment works and
for the waste  treatment system(s)  of
which the treatment works Is a part.
The selection of the system(s) and the
choice of the treatment works on which
construction drawings and specifications
are to be based shall reflect the cost-
effectiveness analysis. This analysis shall
Include:
  (1) The relationship of  the size and
capacity of alternative works to the needs
to be served. Including reserve capacity;
  (2) An  evaluation of alternative flow
and waste reduction measures;
  (3) AT. evaluation of improved effluent
quality attainable by upgrading the op-
eration and maintenance and efficiency
of existing facilities as an alternative  or
supplement to   construction  of new
facilities;
  (4) An evaluation of the capability  of
each alternative to meet applicable ef-
fluent limitations. The treatment works
design must be based upon not less than
secondary  treatment as defined  by the
Administrator pursuant to  sections 301
(a)(l) (B)  and 304(d) (1) of the Act;
  (5) An Identification of, and provision
for,  applying the best practicable waste
treatment  technology (BPWTT)  as de-
fined by the Administrator, based upon
an evaluation of technologies  included
•under each of the following  waste treat-
ment management techniques:
  (1) Biological or  physical-chemical
treatment  and  discharge  to receiving
waters:
   (11) Treatment and reuse;  and
   (ill) Land application techniques.
All Step 2, Step 3 or combination Step
2-3  projects for publicly-owned treat-
ment works construction from funds au-
thorized for any fiscal  year beginning
after June 30, 1974, shall be based upon
application of BWPTT,  as  a minimum.
Where application of BPWTT would not
meet water quality standards, the facil-
ities plan shall provide for attaining such
standards. Such provision shall consider
the  alternative  of treating combined
sewer overflows.
   (6) An evaluation of the alternative
means by which ultimate disposal can be
effected  for  treated wastewater  and
for sludge materials  resulting from the
treatment process, and a determination
of the means chosen.
   (7) An adequate assessment of the ex-
pected  environmental impact  of alter-
natives including sites pursuant to Part
6 of this Chapter. This assessment shall
be revised as necessary to include infor-
mation  developed  during  subsequent
project steps.
   (e) An  identification of  effluent dis-
charge limitations,  or  where  a permit
has been issued, a copy of the permit for
the proposed treatment works as required
by  the  National  Pollution  Discharge
Elimination System.
   (f) Required comments  or approvals
of relevant State, interstate, regional,
and local agencies.
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 29—MONDAY,  FEBRUARY 11, 1»M

                                                     10
-------
  Federal Guidelines
      Operation and
      Maintenance
         of Waste Water Treatment Facilities
                       September 1970
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
-------
                              FOREWORD


Effective design and operation of municipal waste water  treatment

facilities is an essential element in the preservation and

enhancement of our Nation's waters.  The tremendous  investment of

Federal, State, and local funds in these facilities  must be  protected.

We must incorporate past experience and new technology in this

generation of facilities to ensure that optimum benefits are derived

from expenditures in water pollution control.  The development of

these Guidelines represents a significant step toward the achievement

of these goals.


Many have contributed to the development of these Guidelines. I

particularly wish to thank the Ad Hoc Advisory Group, composed of

representatives of the American Society of Civil Engineers,  the

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the Association of

State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, the

Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi Board of Sanitary Engineers,  the

U. S. Council of Consulting Engineers, the Water and Wastewater

Equipment Manufacturers' Association, and the Water  Pollution Control

Federation, for their advice and counsel in reviewing the Guidelines

and in developing the general procedures.
                            David D. Dominick, Commissioner
                            Federal Water Quality Administration
                                 ii
-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


FOREWORD                                                          ii

INTRODUCTION                                                        1

GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN                                               5

   A.  Preliminary Project Planning and Engineering Report           7

       environmental compatibility
       regionalization
       project feasibility
       complete and operable treatment works
       ultimate disposal of sludge and solids
       treatment plant reliability
       excessive infiltration
       elimination of by-passing
       industrial wastes
       staffing and budget for a facility
       design period
       combined sewerage systems

   B.  Preparation of Plans and Specifications                     18

       design summary
       reliability
       discharges to shellfish, potable or recreational  waters
       elimination of by-passes and overflows
       treatment during construction
       experimental processes or equipment
       flexibility and ease of operation and maintenance
       protection of effluent quality
       safety features
       interceptor sewers
       general requirements

GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE                           31

    A. Federal and State Inspections                               31

    B. Personnel                                                   35
                                  iii
-------
    C. Records, Reports, and Laboratory Control                    37




    D. Process Control                                             39




APPENDIX




    Suggested Guide for an Operation and Maintenance Manual        42
                                  iv
-------
                           INTRODUCTION
Over the past year the Federal Water Quality Administration has




carefully analyzed and evaluated its grant program for the




construction of waste treatment facilities.  Past experience




indicated that some of the projects that have received assistance




have, for a variety of reasons, not always been as successful as




anticipated.  Improved design practices and technological advances




are not being adequately incorporated into new plants.  Operators




are often poorly trained and paid.  Facilities are frequently badly




maintained and achieve far less than their designed efficiency levels.






FWQA has an obligation to ensure that Federal monies are wisely spent.




This Administration must insist on proper design and operation




procedures as it is clear that without them adequate levels of




treatment will not be obtained.






On February 10, 1970, President Nixon announced a 37 point program




to improve the Federal government's environmental protection programs.




In this message he directed the Secretary of the Interior to require




that Federally-assisted treatment facilities meet prescribed design,




operation and maintenance standards.  Only July 2, 1970, the




Department of the Interior issued new regulations for the
-------
construction grants program to implement the President's  directive.




Section 601.35 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal  Regulations




concerns the area of operation and maintenance of  facilities;




Section 601.36 concerns the design of facilities.






Section 601.36 states that "no grant shall be made for any project




unless the Commissioner determines that the proposed treatment works




are designed so as to achieve economy, efficiency, and effectiveness




in the prevention or abatement of pollution or enhancement of  the




quality of the water into which such treatment works will discharge




and meet such requirements as the Commissioner may publish from




time to time concerning treatment works design so  as to achieve




efficiency, economy and effectiveness in waste treatment."






There are existing manuals, such as the various State and interstate




standards and the ASCE-WPCF manuals, which can be  used as references




in the design of water pollution control facilities.  Although these




are generally adequate, it is important to emphasize that FWQA is




not necessarily in full agreement with all criteria and concepts




contained therein.  Certain design considerations  are not




adequately emphasized, and adequate guidance is not given in those




areas where there have been recent technological advances.






To supplement the existing standards, FWQA has  developed




Guidelines for Design.  These Guidelines are not intended to




cover all aspects of engineering design.  Rather they outline,




generally in broad terms, specific FWQA interests  and policies that




are not adequately reflected in the presently existing manuals.




                                  2
-------
In addition to these Guidelines, FWQA will be issuing Technical




Bulletins.  Each Bulletin will cover a certain topic in detail.




These Bulletins are intended to amplify specific areas contained




in the Guidelines, define and analyze certain deficiencies in




design, and evaluate new advances in technology and provide guidance




for incorporating these in new facilities.  The Bulletins will




combine the results of our field experience and our research and




development program, along with the efforts of outside experts




and consultants.






Together with the applicable portions of presently existing




manuals and the attached Guidelines, the Technical Bulletins




will cummulatively constitute the FWQA design requirements referred




to in Section 601.36.






Section 601.35 states that "no grant shall be made for any project




unless the State water pollution control agency assures the




Commissioner that the State will inspect the treatment works not




less frequently than annually for the 3 years after such treatment




works are constructed and periodically thereafter to determine




whether such treatment works are operated and maintained in an




efficient, economic, and effective manner and unless the applicant




assures the Commissioner that the treatment works will be maintained




and operated in accordance with such requirements as the Commissioner




may publish from time to time concerning methods, techniques, and




practices for economic, efficient, and effective operation and mainte-




nance of treatment works."
-------
The number and frequency of the inspections called  for by  the




regulation are the absolute minimum necessary to ensure proper




maintenance and operation of a facility.  FWQA will be working




closely with the States to ensure that inspections  are adequate




in scope as well as in frequency.






FWQA has developed Guidelines for Operation and Maintenance




which provide the general basic requirements in the areas  of




inspections, operation and maintenance for Federally-assisted




projects.  FWQA will be issuing Technical Bulletins which, as  in




the case of the Technical Bulletins for Design, will provide




amplifications in certain specific areas.






The Guidelines and future FWQA Technical Bulletins for design and




operation and maintenance should be maintained in appropriate files




by State water pollution control agencies, consulting engineers, and




all other interested parties.  In the future, projects for which




Federal grant assistance is requested are expected to comply with




these Guidelines and Technical Bulletins.  While in exceptional




cases deviations may be accepted, any deviations must be




justified on a case-by-case basis and approved by FWQA prior




to their initiation.
-------
                       GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN
These Guidelines are intended to supplement existing references




such as the Recommended Standards for Sewage Works:  Great Lakes-




Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers (the




Ten State Standards), the ASCE Manuals Number 36 and 37 (WPCF




Manuals 8 and 9), and applicable State standards and guidelines.






All water pollution control projects which are submitted for FWQA




construction grants will be required to conform to these Guidelines




and future Technical Bulletins, as well as to applicable State




requirements.  It is recognized that certain modifications or




exceptions may be necessary when justified in unusual situations.




In such cases under appropriate conditions, deviations from existing




standards or Guidelines may be allowed.  However, written approval




of any deviations from the Guidelines, Technical Bulletins, or




applicable State standards must be obtained from the FWQA Regional




Office and the State agency as early as possible prior to the




completion of detailed plans and specifications.






These Guidelines are presented in two parts.  Part A deals with




general concepts which must be considered very early in the




planning and preparation of an engineering report for waste
-------
treatment facilities.  Part B makes reference to  more  specific




subjects which must be considered in the preparation of  final




construction plans and specifications.
-------
A.  PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLANNING AND ENGINEERING REPORT






    Certain basic principles should be considered early in the




    planning process for water pollution control facilities.




    Conformance with these principles is essential to ensure  the




    eventual development of properly designed facilities which will




    meet all State and FWQA requirements.






    The engineering report accompanying the application for Federal




    aid should clearly indicate compliance with the following




    principles.  Any questions regarding the applicability of these




    items to the proposed project or requests for deviations  should




    be resolved by consultation with the State water pollution




    control agency and the FWQA Regional Office before completion




    of the engineering report and submission of an application for




    Federal aid.






    I.   Environmental Compatibility






         All Federally-assisted projects must conform to the  intent




         of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and




         Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of




         Environmental Quality.






         a.  Planning for the proposed project must take into




             account all aspects of environmental quality protection.




             Efforts shall be taken to preserve natural beauty,




             wildlife, recreational areas, historic sites, and




             private property.




                                  7
-------
     b.  The project must be designed and constructed so as to




         have  the  least  possible impact on the environment.






     c.  Attention must  be given to  the general aesthetic




         appearance of  the facility  and to the prevention of any




         possible  odor  problems.






     d.  Planning  shall  be coordinated with  local planning and




         citizen groups  to resolve potential  site problems.






     e.  Plant locations on flood plains should be  avoided




         whenever  practicable.  When such locations are




         unavoidable,  adequate  protection from flooding must




         be provided.






II.  Regionalization






     a.  Due consideration must be given  to  the advantages of




         regional  and  basin  sewerage facility planning.  Whenever




         feasible, municipalities  should  join together  in




         cooperative regional  treatment  systems,  composed of one




         or more treatment plants  depending  on water quality




         requirements  and  economic,  operational,  and other




         appropriate  considerations.






     b.  Where regional waste  water management  plans have  been




         developed and approved by an appropriate agency,  the




         project should conform to such plans.
-------
     c.  If a regional plan has not  been  developed, an analysis




         shall be made to determine  the feasibility of having




         the municipality join in a  regional system in lieu of




         constructing their owi independent or additional treat-




         ment facilities.






III. Project Feasibility






     a.  After consideration of all  alternatives,  the design of




         the proposed project shall  be made on the basis of




         economic feasibility, water quality objectives,




         environmental compatibility, and other applicable




         considerations.  That certain portions of the system are




         eligible for Federal assistance  and others are not




         should not determine the final nature of  the project.






     b.  In order to avoid tying up  Federal grant  funds for




         unreasonably long periods of time, the project for




         which Federal aid is requested,  including other




         facilities required to make it operable,  should be of




         such a scope that it can be completed and in operation




         within three years of the date of the Federal grant




         offer.  For unusually large and  complex projects, a




         longer period of time may be allowed.  Additional




         phases of the project may be submitted for consideration




         for Federal aid in future years  when  the  anticipated




         construction period will meet these requirements.
-------
IV.  Complete and Operable Treatment Works






     a.  Any proposed project must be  designed  and  reviewed  in




         light of the entire waste treatment system.   No  project




         will be approved unless it is shown that the capacity




         and treatment provided by the waste treatment system




         serving the proposed project  will  meet all FWQA,




         State, and interstate requirements, including approved




         water quality standards, and  protect the designated uses




         of the receiving waters.






     b.  If construction of other facilities is required  to  make




         the proposed project operable and  acceptable, then a




         commitment must be made that  the required  construction




         will be concurrent with that  of the proposed facility.






V.   Receiving Waters and Degree of Treatment






     a.  Proposed treatment must be in accordance with State




         requirements, as well as with Federal  and State  water




         quality standards, Federal Enforcement Conference




         requirements, comprehensive river  basin reports and




         plans, FWQA Regulations, and the designated  uses of




         the receiving waters.






     b.  Characteristics of receiving waters must be  considered




         to ensure that water quality standards will  be met  by




         the proposed treatment.  Applicable data shall be




         included in the engineering report.




                             10
-------
     c.  The engineering report shall specifically indicate the




         anticipated removal efficiency of BOD,  suspended  solids,




         and other appropriate parameters, and the total pounds




         of BOD, suspended solids, and other significant




         constituents to be discharged per day.






     d.  There should be no discharge of effluents to  swamps,




         stagnant waters, small lakes, or intermittent streams




         if feasible alternates are available.






     e.  Outfalls shall be extended and designed as necessary  to




         insure adequate mixing and dispersal of the effluent.






     f.  Disposal of a treated effluent to other than surface




         waters requires prior approval from the State and FWQA.






VI.  Ultimate Disposal of Sludge and Solids




     a.  Provision for ultimate disposal of sludge must be




         clearly indicated and must be in accordance with




         interstate, State, and FWQA requirements.  It is  not




         sufficient merely to indicate such processes  as drying




         beds, vacuum filters, or incinerators,  without also




         describing the method to be used for final disposal of




         the sludge cake or sludge residues.






     b.  The method of final disposal must not result  in any




         significant degradation of surface or ground  water, air,




         or land resources.  If there is a choice, the method
                             11
-------
         chosen must be that having  the  least impact on the




         environment.






     c.  No sludge residues, grit, ash,  or other  solids may be




         discharged into the receiving waters or  plant effluent.




         The disposal of any sludge  to ocean waters is not




         recommended.






     d.  Disposal of raw sludge to fresh or marine waters or by




         spreading and tilling on land will not be approved.






     e.  Sludge elutriation is not considered desirable and will




         not be approved without adequate safeguards.






VII. Treatment Plant Reliability






     a.  All water pollution control facilities should be planned




         and designed so as to provide for maximum reliability




         at all times.






     b.  The facility should be capable  of operating



         satisfactorily during power failures,  flooding, peak  loads,




         equipment failure, and maintenance  shutdowns.  A




         minimum of primary treatment should be provided at  all




         times.  Disinfection  and higher degrees  of  treatment




         may be required where necessitated by the uses of  the




         receiving waters.
                             12
-------
     c.  Such reliability can be obtained through the use of



         various design techniques which will result' in a




         facility which is virtually "fail-safe."  (See Part  B,




         Section II, page 20 .)






VIII. Excessive Infiltration






     a.  Excessive infiltration is an indication of deficiencies




         in the sewerage system.  This situation is often




         categorized by high per capita flows to the treatment




         facility.






     b.  Construction of treatment facilities with extra capacity




         to handle these excessive flows may not be the best




         solution to the problem, since this may result in




         unnecessary capital and operating costs and in




         inefficient treatment.






     c.  An analysis of the sewerage system must be made to




         determine the causes for such excessive infiltration




         where it occurs and, where feasible, an acceptable




         remedial plan of action should be prepared to correct




         the situation.






     d.  Solutions, such as separation of illegal storm water




         connections, repair or replacement of defective sewers,




         and enforcement of sewer ordinances, must be discussed




         in the report together with an adequate cost analysis
                             13
-------
         before any recommendation  is made to construct an




         oversized treatment  facility or to allow by-passing of




         excess flows.






IX.  Elimination of By-passing






     a.  In systems handling  only dry-weather flows,  the incorpo-




         ration in the  design of  mechanisms for by-passing




         treatment plants or  pumping stations must be avoided




         if at all possible.  Any exceptions must have prior




         approval of the State  and  FWQA.






     b.  Where incorporation  of by-passing facilities is




         necessary, consideration must  be given to  separation of




         combined systems, detention facilities, or other




         alternative means of control or treatment, and




         disinfection of overflows.






     c.  Adequate safeguards  to prevent misuse of by-pass




         facilities must be provided.






     d.  Extended by-passing  during construction will not be




         permitted.  (See Part  B, Section W,  page  21.)






X.   Industrial Wastes
     a.  The engineering report should clearly define the




         characteristics of the wastes from major or




         significant industries and their effects upon the




         waste treatment process.



                            14
-------
     b.  Where necessary, pilot plant studies should be made to




         determine the final design criteria for the treatment



         facility.






     c.  It is necessary that adequate industrial waste ordinances




         or other controls be adopted by the municipalities in




         order to protect and maintain the treatment facilities.




         These shall provide for the following:






            1.  Pretreatment of any wastes which would




                otherwise be detrimental to the  collection




                system, treatment facilities, or processes.






            2.  An equitable system of cost recovery in




                accordance with Federal Regulations,




                18 CFR 601.34c.






XI.  Staffing and Budget for a Facility






     A thorough analysis must be made of the operation and




     maintenance requirements of the proposed facility,




     including required laboratory testing.  Specific




     recommendations shall be given in the engineering report




     for staffing, including operator qualifications, and




     annual budget needs of the proposed treatment facility.
-------
XII. Design Period






     A careful review of the growth potential of  the  area  to be




     served by a waste water facility 'should be made  to




     adequately provide for the increased waste loadings that




     are expected to develop.  Both domestic and  industrial




     loadings should be discussed in the report.   It  is not




     considered feasible for FWQA to establish  a  standard




     minimum design period because the  growth characteristics




     of a particular area may be such that a minimum design




     period would cause uneconomical design and inefficient




     operating conditions after the project is  constructed




     The rationale for design will be as follows:






     a.  When rapid growth is anticipated, the  design period




         should be long enough for orderly spacing of construction




         contracts and the design should permit sufficient




         flexibility to prevent inefficient operation of




         individual units.  The design layout of  a treatment




         facility should consider the ultimate  development of  the




         watershed being served and the characteristics of the




         receiving waters.  Construction may be phased to  meet




         treatment demands.






     b.  Where the anticipated growth of an area  is estimated  to




         be relatively slow, the design should  be for a reasonable




         growth rate with sufficient flexibility of sizing of  units




         to ensure efficiency of operation.




                            16
-------
       c.  The plant site must be sufficiently large to permit




           expansion of the facility to provide for foreseeable




           future needs, such as increased capacity and higher




           degrees of treatment.






       d.  The plant must be designed to facilitate expansion and




           possible upgrading of the facility.






XIII.  Combined Sewerage Systems






       The problem of pollution from combined systems shall be




       considered in early project planning.  Possible solutions,




       both short and long term, shall be outlined in the




       engineering report.  Consideration shall be given to




       detention facilities and disinfection, separation of




       combined systems, treatment or control of overflows or




       o ther so lu t io ns .
                               17
-------
B.  PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS






    The items outlined under Part A,  Preliminary  Project  Planning




    and Engineering Report.  must also be considered when  proceeding




    with final design details.   The following guidelines  more




    specifically indicate how these considerations and others  are  to




    be applied in the preparation of  final contract plans and




    specifications.






    I.   Design Summary






         A Design Summary, including  but not limited  to the following




         items, will be required with submission of final plans and




         specifications unless acceptable data are  already included




         in the engineering report.






         a.  A flow diagram indicating the project's  major features




             and the nature of flow and recirculation through the




             various processes.






         b.  A hydraulic profile of flow through the  treatment plant.




             This profile should clearly indicate that the peak flow




             will pass through the treatment facilities without




             back-up, flooding, or submerging weirs.   The hydraulic




             gradient should permit discharge into  the receiving




             waters during periods of flood stage.
                                 18
-------
c.  Identification of receiving waters  and  location of




    point of effluent discharge.  This  should be  shown on




    a map that would allow transferral  to standard U.S.G.S.




    maps.  In addition,  detailed information should be




    provided on the water quality, water uses,  and




    hydraulics of the receiving waters  at and near the




    point of discharge.






d.  The initial population, population  equivalent, and




    flow to the facility.






e.  Identification, including expected  strength and




    toxicity, of major or significant industrial  waste




    contributions.






f.  The design year, design population, and flow.






g.  Design efficiency, such as removal  of BOD,  suspended




    solids, and other appropriate parameters and  the  total




    pounds of BOD, suspended solids,  and other  significant




    constituents discharged per day.






h.  Physical characteristics of treatment units,  including




    size, surface loadings, and detention times.






i.  Identification and justification  of any deviations




    from applicable standards or FWQA Guidelines  and




    Technical Bulletins.
                       19
-------
     j.  Method of ultimate sludge disposal.






     k.  Identification and explanation of any unusual design




         features.






II.  Reliability






     The treatment facility should be capable of  satisfactory




     operation during emergencies, maintenance  shutdowns, and




     power failures.  (See Part  A, Section Vn, page  13.)   This




     type of reliability shall be achieved by consideration  and




     appropriate inclusion of such design factors as:






     a.  Duplicate sources of electric power.






     b.  Standby power for essential plant elements.






     c.  Multiple units and equipment.






     d.  Holding tanks or basins to  provide  for emergency




         storage of overflow and adequate pump-back facilities.






     e.  Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities  to  permit




         rerouting of flows under emergency  conditions.






     f.  Provision for emergency storage  or  disposal of  sludge.






Ill. Discharges to Shellfish. Potable, or Recreational Waters






     Discharges in close proximity  to shellfishing  beds,




     public water supply intakes, or contact recreation  areas
                            20
-------
     should be avoided.  Where such discharges are unavoidable,




     special precautions must  be  taken.   In  addition  to  the



     items listed above, the following are -recommended and may




     be required:






     a.  Dual chlorination units.






     b.  Automatic facilities  to  regulate and record  chlorine




         residuals.






     c.  Automatic alarm systems  to give  warning of high water,




         power failure,  or equipment malfunction.






     d.  Sand filters or polishing ponds  following secondary




         treatment.






IV.  Elimination of By-passes  and Overflows






     a.  Plant and up-stream by-passes should not be  permitted.




         (See Part A, Section  DC,  page 14.)






     b.  Exceptions, even  for  combined systems, shall not be




         considered until  every effort has been made  to  minimize




         the discharge of  untreated waste water to waters by




         utilizing detention facilities or other alternative




         means of control  or treatment, disinfection  of




         overflows, separation of combined systems, and  correction




         of excessive infiltration.
                             21
-------
V.    Treatment During Construction






      a.  If at all possible, by-passing of  raw sewage  during




          the construction of additions to existing treatment




          facilities shall not be allowed.






      b.  During alterations to existing plants, the same degree




          of treatment provided by the existing plant should be




          continued.  If this is not feasible,  a minimum of




          primary treatment and disinfection should be  provided




          at all times.






      c.  The consulting engineer must either establish a




          construction schedule which will minimize or prevent




          by-passing or require the contractor to submit such




          a schedule before construction commences.  The




          requirement for continuous treatment must be clearly




          stated in the contract plans and specifications.






      d.  Where no other feasible alternative exists, by-passing




          may be permitted providing it is kept to an absolute




          minimum and receives prior approval from the State and




          FWQA.






      e.  Measures to be taken for control of erosion at the




          construction site must be included in the plans and




          specifications or otherwise provided for by the




          consulting engineer and/or contractor.
                              22
-------
VI.   Experimental Processes or Equipment






      a.  FWQA encourages the application of new approaches  to




          treatment plant design and operation.   Aid for the




          construction and operation of facilities  demonstrating




          experimental processes or equipment is available under




          the FWQA Research, Development and Demonstration Program.






      b.  Section 8 P. L. 84-660 grant funds may be used for




          facilities incorporating new processes or equipment




          which have had limited prior use,  providing the project




          is reasonable in scope and preliminary results are




          favorable.






      c.  In such cases, the contract specifications must




          include details on performance criteria that are




          acceptable to the State and FWQA.   In some cases,




          adequate performance guarantees may be required.






      d.  Prior approval of the State and FWQA must be




          obtained before preparation of contract plans and




          specifications for such projects.






VII.  Flexibility and Ease of Operation and  Maintenance






      a.  The design of process piping, equipment arrangement,




          and unit structures in the facility must allow for




          efficiency and convenience in operation and maintenance




          and provide maximum flexibility of operation.  Such






                                23
-------
    flexibility should permit the highest  possible degree




    of treatment to be obtained under varying circumstances,






b.  Process controls, such as the return and measurement




    of sludge in the activated sludge process, variable




    recirculation capacity for trickling filter plants,




    and the feeding of raw wastes directly into aeration




    tanks, should be provided.






c.  All equipment shall be easily accessible so as to




    provide ease of maintenance.






d.  Adequate facilities shall be provided for taking test




    samples at required locations.






e.  Multiple units or dual compartments with unit drains




    should be provided for all processes, including




    disinfection facilities, so that draining, cleaning,




    and other maintenance can be provided without omitting




    any treatment process.  For small plants retention




    basins may be substituted for these purposes.






f.  All basins and tanks in locations subject to high




    ground water levels or flooding should be provided




    with back-flow relief valves.






g.  The use of equalization tanks to decrease the impact




    of peak loads is recommended.
-------
       h.  Color coding shall be provided to identify each type




           of process piping in the treatment plant.






       i.  An adequately designed and equipped laboratory shall




           be provided.






       j.  Equipment with high noise levels, such as compressors




           and centrifuges, shall be enclosed in separate rooms,




           which should be sufficiently soundproof to protect the




           operator and to satisfy neighborhood environmental




           requirements.






       k.  Instrumentation should be used to facilitate operation




           and recordkeeping.  Flow measurement and recording




           equipment should be provided at the influent end of




           the plant.






       1.  All materials of construction shall be such as to




           withstand local climatic and other environmental




           conditions.  This is particularly important in coastal




           areas.






VIIL   Protection of Effluent Quality






       a.  All aspects of plant design, including the layout




           of tanks and piping, shall allow for routine maintenance




           of treatment units without deterioration of the plant




           effluent.
                               25
-------
b.  The flow from all unit drains must be  directed  back  to




    the treatment plant and not discharged into the plant




    effluent.






c.  Baffles or other means must be provided across  the




    surface of primary tanks, secondary tanks,  and  chlorine




    contact tanks to prevent the discharge of floating




    materials.






d.  All final settling tanks must be provided with  skimming




    devices to collect and remove floating solids.






e.  Extended aeration plants must be equipped with  sludge




    holding tanks for wasting excess sludge so as to prevent




    sludge carryover into the effluent.  Polishing  lagoons




    or sand filters are recommended following this  type of




    facility.






f.  No piping may be installed which would allow for the




    direct discharge of sludge solids or ashes into the




    effluent or receiving waters.






g.  Piping should be arranged so that no supernatant, including




    drainage from sludge beds, centrate, filtrate,  overflows




    from thickening units and digesters, etc., is discharged




    into the effluent.  Supernatant should either be




    returned to the treatment process or, preferably, be




    given separate treatment and disposal.
                         26
-------
IX.   Safety Features






      As indicated before, these Guidelines  are  not  intended  to




      be all inclusive.  The safety features enumerated  below are




      those which deserve increased emphasis.






      a.  Chlorine facilities must be provided with  proper




          ventilation and heating.  The fan  switch shall be




          located outside of the facility.   The  chlorine storage




          area should be separated from the  feed area and from




          the remaining plant areas.






      b.  The wet wells and dry wells of pumping stations must




          be provided with positive means of ventilation.






      c.  The treatment plant shall be enclosed  as necessary  to




          protect the public and the facility.






      d.  Protective railing shall be provided around open  tanks




          and other areas where it may contribute to safety.






      e.  Explosion-proof motors, controls,  and  electrical  wiring




          and lighting shall be provided in  all  hazardous areas,




          such as the digester control building  and  enclosed  wet




          wells.






      f.  The public water supply must be protected  to eliminate




          the possibility of contamination by cross  connections




          with sewage or sludge piping.  This should be  achieved
                              27
-------
          by a positive air break,  although an adequate  automatic

          flow-back prevention device  may be acceptable  under

          certain circumstances.  Installation should be on  the


          main water line where it  first  enters  the treatment


          plant or pumping station  and prior to  any plant  piping


          connections, including yard  hydrants.



      g.  Flood lights shall be provided  for nighttime  inspection


          and maintenance.



      h.  Signs shall be provided designating hazardous  areas  and


          nonpotable water taps.



X.    Interceptor Sewers



      a.  Particular attention shall be given to ensure that

          sewers will be as water tight as possible. Plans  and


          specifications shall include the following.



          1.  Infiltration or exfiltration requirements  with


              maximum allowable limits.



          2.  Bedding and backfill  specifications including  cross

              section details.



          3.  Jointing specifications  to provide for minimum


              infiltration.



          4.  Requirements for post construction testing to


              determine compliance  with specified limitations  on


              infiltration.
                              28
-------
      b.  Adequate subsurface investigations  should be  made  to




          identify underground conditions such as the presence



          of rock or unsuitable soils.  The-bid proposal  should




          be based on an evaluation of such investigations.






XI.   General Requirements






      a.  The contract specifications must include all  FWQA




          administrative requirements.  These include such




          items as project signs,  labor standards, wage rates,




          civil rights, and competitive bidding.  Required




          subjects and documents can be obtained from the




          applicable State agency or FWQA Regional Office.






      b.  Plans and specifications shall be prepared with all




          necessary details to permit the contractor to properly




          evaluate the cost of the project and to submit  a




          competitive bid.  Details shall be  sufficiently clear




          and complete to avoid the issuance  of unnecessary  and




          costly change orders.






      c.  Those portions of the project that  are eligible for




          Federal aid under P. L. 84-660 must be clearly




          identified and contained either in  separate contracts




          or in separate bid schedules in the contract




          documents.
                              29
-------
Federal Guidelines
   Operation and
   Maintenance
      of Wastewater Treatment Facilities
  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
        Washington, D.C. 20460

          AUGUST 1974
-------
                            FOREWORD
    This supplement updates and replaces pages 31  through  46  of
the  Federal  Guidelines  -  Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Waste  Water  Treatment  Facilities, dated  September  1970   and
concerns  only  that  portion of the Guidelines pertaining to the
operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment  facilities.

    Several new subject areas have been added to  comprehensively
cover  all  elements  commonly  identified with the Operation and
Maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities.   The  supplement
has  been  expanded  to  include titles on Staffing and Training,
Safety, Emergency Operating  Plan,  Maintenance Management,  and
Budget.

    It  is  becoming  increasingly  evident that there is a vital
need to include  more  comprehensive  operation and  maintenance
considerations  in the early stages of project development.  This
is vital to insure that the huge investments in construction  of
wastewater  treatment  facilities  result in treatment capability
that can produce a high quality effluent with a high  degree  of
reliability.

    There  have  been  several organizations and many individuals
that have contributed to the development of this supplement.  The
guidance provided by the Technical Advisory Group   (TAG)  to  the
Municipal  Construction  Division  within  the  Office of Water &
Hazardous Materials of the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  is
particularily  noted.   TAG  is composed of a representative from
each of the following organizations:

        American Society of Civil Engineers
        Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
        Association of State and Interstate Water  Pollution Control
            Administrators
        Great Lakes Upper Mississippi  Board of Sanitary Engineers
        U.S. Council of Consulting Engineers
        Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association
        League of Women Voters
        National League of Cities/U.S. Conference  of Mayors
        Associated General Contractors of America
                              iii
-------
        Securities Industry Association
        Conference of State Sanitary Engineers
        American Public Works  Association
        Water Pollution Control  Federation

    The time and effort of the  various   Individuals   and  groups
that   contributed   to  the  development  and   review  of  these
guidelines 1s sincerely appreciated.
                                  James L.  Agee
                                  Acting Assistant Administrator
                                  for Water and Hazardous Materials
                               1v
-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION                                                    1
GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE                        4
1.0  Federal and State Inspections                              5
2.0  Staffing and Training                                      8
3.0  Records, Reports and Laboratory Control                    12
4.0  Process Control                                           14
5.0  Safety                                                    17
6.0  Emergency Operating Plan                                  19
7.0  Maintenance Management                                    20
8.0  Requirements For Operation and Maintenance Manual          23
9.0  Financial Controls and Responsibilities                    25
10.0 References                                                26
-------
                          INTRODUCTION

    The Federal Water Pollution Control  Act  Amendments  of  1972
established  specific goals for controlling wastewater discharges
to meet certain water quality objectives.   Achieving these  goals
will  require  the  expenditure of many  billions 1n capital funds
for the construction of new facilities and will  also require that
all treatment facilities, both  new  and  existing,  be  operated
efficiently  and  effectively  to  maximize our pollution control
effort.  Proper operation of  new  and  modified  facilities  and
improved  operation  of  existing facilities are essential if our
water quality goals are to be met.

    The surveys conducted in accordance  with Section 210  of  the
Act,  and  included  as  Chapter  VII of  both the 1973 and 1974
editions of the Clean Water Report to Congress showed that  about
one-third  of all treatment plants constructed with Federal grant
assistance were not operating at the  designed  efficiency  level
when the plants were inspected.  This illustrates the improvement
in  plant  operation  that  will  be  needed if our water quality
objectives are to be achieved.

    These Operation and Maintenance Guidelines are structured  to
emphasize  a  comprehensive strategy to  attain the high levels of
operational efficiency that are necessary to realize  appropriate
water  quality  objectives  throughout the Nation.  This strategy
must link closely municipal permits  issued  under  the  National
Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination System (NPDES) with the various
State and Federal programs responsible for assuring that effluent
quality complies with specific municipal permit conditions.  This
approach is consistent with the stated objectives of the 'Act  and
EPA's Water Strategy document of March 15, 1974.

    Title   II   of  the  Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act
Amendments  of  1972,  PL  92-500,  authorizes   the   award   of
construction grants for waste treatment  works.  As a condition of
these  awards,  the  Act in Sections 204(a) and (b) requires that
the grantee make adequate provisions  for  proper  and  efficient
operation  and  maintenance  of  grant  funded  facilities.   The
Construction Grant Regulations, Title 40, Chapter  1,  Subchapter
B,  Part  35,  Subpart E, dated February 4, 1974, contain several
sections that provide additional information on  these  operation
and maintenance requirements.
-------
    Section  35.917,  Facilities   Planning   (Step   1)  calls for a
cost-effectiveness analysis  of alternatives  for  a waste treatment
facility for which a Federal grant Is  requested.  One  element  of
the analysis, section 35.917-1  (d)(3)  calls  for

            "An evaluation of Improved effluent  quality
            attainable  by  upgrading  the operation and
            maintenance  and  efficiency of  existing
            facilities  as an alternative or supplement
            to construction  of new facilities."

    In Section 35.925-10, it 1s stated that  a grant award  shall
not be made unless it 1s determined
              "If  the award of grant assistance is  for
            a   project   Involving   Step   3,    that
            satisfactory provision has been made by  the
            applicant for assuring proper and efficient
            operation  and maintenance of the treatment
            works, in accordance  with  35.935-12,   and
            that  the  State  will  have  an  effective
            operation   and   maintenance    monitoring
            program  to  assure  that  treatment works
            assisted under  this  subpart  comply with
            applicable permit and grant conditions."

    Section 35.935-12 states:

              "(a)   The  grantee  must  make  adequate
              provisions satisfactory to  the  Regional
              Administrator   for   assuring  economic,
              effective, and  efficient  operation   and
              maintenance  of  such works in accordance
              with a plan of operation approved by   the
              State  water pollution control agency  or,
              as appropriate,  the  Interstate  agency,
              after construction thereof.

              "(b)   As  a  minimum,  such  plan  shall
              include provision for: (1)  An  operation
              and maintenance manual for each facility,
              (2)  an  emergency operating and response
              program, (3) properly trained management,
              operation and maintenance personnel,   (4)
-------
              adequate   budget   for   operation   and
              maintenance, (5) operational  reports,  and
              (6)  provisions  for  laboratory  testing
              adequate  to   determine   Influent   and
              effluent   characteristics   and  removal
              efficiencies.

              "(c) The Regional Administrator shall  not
              pay (1)  more   than  50  percent  of  the
              Federal  share  of  any  Step  3  project
              unless the grantee has furnished a  draft
              of  the  operation and maintenance manual
              for  review,  or  adequate  evidence   of
              timely  development  of  such a draft, or
              (2) more that  90 percent of  the  Federal
              share  unless  the grantee has furnished a
              satisfactory    final    operation    and
              maintenance manual."

    The guidelines which follow are Intended to assist 1n meeting
these  specific requirements of the Act and regulations  for grant
assisted facility construction and to provide Information on  the
key elements that should be  Included 1n any plan of operation for
a  wastewater  treatment  facility.  More detailed Information on
various aspects of operational plans may be found in  the  source
documents  referenced throughout the guidelines and listed at the
back of this document.
-------
            GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
    These Guidelines are Intended to assist in assuring that  all
aspects  related  to  wastewater  treatment  plant  operation and
maintenance are appropriately considered by those responsible for
complying  with  grant  requirements,  specific  effluent  permit
criteria,  and  related  water quality standards.  The Guidelines
are presented categorically to accommodate their  use  in  either
the  development  of new facilities or in upgrading the operation
and maintenance procedures and programs of  existing  facilities.
In  the  development  of new facilities, it 1s essential that the
various aspects of operation and maintenance that are outlined in
these Guidelines be given appropriate consideration early in  the
design  stage  and  that  the design address these considerations
properly  in  producing  a  facility  with   optimum,   long-term
performance capability.
-------
1.0 FEDERAL AND STATE INSPECTIONS

    1.1  To provide assurance  of effective, efficient,  continuous
        operation  of  waste   treatment   facilities  and  related
        appurtenances constructed  under  PL 92-500  grants  within
        their  jurisdiction,   State   agencies shall establish and
        maintain appropriate  waste treatment facility  inspection
        and technical assistance programs to identify operational
        deficiencies  and  to  insure that  appropriate remedial
        action is taken to correct deficiencies.   This  activity
        shall  be  clearly identified in the annual State Program
        Plan submitted to the EPA.

    1.2  State  agencies  shall   conduct   at   least   an   annual
        inspection,  or provide for  the  inspection of, facilities
        constructed with Federal funds to determine whether these
        facilities are operated efficiently  and  effectively   in
        accordance with plant design.

        1.2.1 The   inspector   shall   record   the    following
            information,  using EPA  Form  7500-5(4-72) (revised
            1/74) or the latest revised  version:

            1.2.1.1 General   information, including:   date    of
              inspection;  plant  identification  and  locations;
              name of inspector and   title;  type  of  plant  and
              collection   system;   estimated  total  population
              served as well  as industrial population equivalents
              served.

            1.2.1.2 Plant loading  performance  data,  including:
              average  daily   flow  (MGD); peak flow rate for wet
              and dry weather  (MGD); percent  daily  industrial
              flow  to plant; date,  time and volume of any wastes
              bypassing the  plant;   and summary  of  laboratory
              analyses  data   on raw waste and final effluent and
              other significant unit processes.

            1.2.1.3 Information   on    operating     personnel,
              including:  staff complement and qualifications  of
              personnel in each job  category; total manhours  per
              week;   number    of  State certified  or  licensed
              personnel; staffing  deficiencies; staff  vacancies;
              staffing  needs  not  budgeted;  training needs and
              annual O&M  Budgets.   Also included  will  be   an
-------
          Identification   and   narrative  of  any  facility
          problem  traceable   to   personnel   or   training
          deficiencies.

        1.2.1.4 An identification  and  brief  discussion  of
          significant  operational problems or difficulties.

        1.2.1.5 An evaluation and  report  on  the  facility,
          including:   adequacy   of   operation   and  plant
          performance  with regard to State and Federal Permit
          or other   requirements;  general  housekeeping  and
          maintenance   adequacy;   testing   and   reporting
          adequacy;  and   recommendations   for   corrective
          actions.

        1.2.1.6 Appropriate    additional    operation    and
          maintenance  data  and information pertinent to the
          conditions found at the plant or elsewhere  in  the
          sewerage system at the time of Inspection.

    1.2.2  Copies  of  the  inspection   results   shall   be
        distributed  by   the  State  Water  Pollution Control
        Agency to the  subject waste treatment facilities; two
        copies to the  EPA Regional Office, including  a  copy
        of  the  report   transmittal  letter to the inspected
        facility  and/or  the   authority   responsible   for
        management.

    1.2.3  EPA shall  identify for each State by January  1  of
        each  year those  facilities the State must inspect in
        order to comply with Title  II  of  PL  92-500.   This
        list  shall  also identify on a tentative basis those
        facilities   to    which    EPA    Regional    Office
        representatives   may  accompany State representatives
        to conduct inspections.   Reasonable  advance  notice
        will   be    given by  EPA  to  the  State  on  plant
        inspections  not  previously  indicated  on  the  annual
        11st.

1.3 In addition to thorough  annual  inspections  as  described
    above, routine  interim inspections should be  conducted by
    the  State.  The EPA  Regional Office  shall receive a  copy
    of the reports on  interim inspections.
-------
1.4 Prompt and meaningful  follow-up action  shall  be  taken  by
    the  State  to  assure  correction   of   Inadequacies   and
    deficiencies noted at  inspections.

    1.4.1 Where major deficiencies  are  involved,   a   copy  of
        official State correspondence,  notices  or orders to  a
        municipality  and   follow-up inspection reports shall
        be sent to the EPA Regional Office.

    1.4.2 Wherever possible, in  correcting  deficiencies  in
        operation,  the State  should   coordinate  with   the
        design engineer responsible for the subject  facility.

    1.4.3 The consulting  (design)   engineer and the  State
        should be involved in the start-up  of new facilities.
-------
2.0 STAFFING AND TRAINING

    2.1 General Requirements

        This section 1s Included as an  aid  to  the  grantee  in
        responding  to  the  requirements of Section 204(a)(4)  of
        the Act.  The referenced  section  requires  that,   as   a
        condition  of  a  grant,  the  grantee  will  Insure his
        facility will be adequately staffed and that it  will  be
        managed in accordance with an operational plan.

    2.2 Specific Requirements by Phase

        2.2.1 Facility planning phase

            2.2.1.1 Analysis of Manpower Considerations

              (a) Availability  and  skills  of  personnel    from
                  existing  facilities  which will be modified  or
                  phased out as a result of grant.

              (b) New  personnel  skills  required  by   proposed
                  facility or operational alternatives.

              (c) Potential staffing problems.

            2.2.1.2 Recommendations to be included:

              (a) Probable  total   staffing   requirements   for
                  facility.

              (b) Probable training needs and sources.

              (c) General  plan   for   staff   development   and
                  training.

              (d) Design  considerations  necessary   to   assure
                  operability and maintainability.

        2.2.2 Preparation of Plans and Specifications

            The following staffing plan should  be  available  in
            preliminary  form  in  the  design  reports.   Update
            should be made at about the 50/6 completion  point  of
            construction and should be finalized 60 days prior to
                                8
-------
    start-up  for  Inclusion  in  the plant  Operation  and
    Maintenance manual.
    2.2.2.1  Staff Development
      (a)  Planned staffing schedule.
      (b)  Salary schedules.
      (c)  Detailed manpower requirements   for  each  unit
          process - include number,  type  and level.
      (d)  Staff structure and organization.
      (e)  Use of existing staff (where appropriate).
      (f)  Detailed analysis  of  new  or   special  skills
          (where appropriate).
      (g)  Staff certification requirements.
    2.2.2.2  Staff Training
      (a)  Training  needs   for   initial   and   upgrade
          training,   including:    management,   safety,
          operation and operational  control,  laboratory,
          maintenance  and maintenance management, start-
          up and special equipment
      (b)  Training materials requirements.
      (c)  Training strategy and responsibilities.
      (d)  Training  schedules  for  construction  period,
          start-up and operational phases.
      (e)  Job  and  training  aids  required,   including
          standard job operating procedures.
2.2.3 Construction Phase
    2.2.3.1  Staffing
      (a)  The chief operator shall  be  retained  by  the
          grantee  by  the time construction of the  waste
-------
      treatment plant 1s  50% complete  so  that  he   can
      become  familiar with the plant  layout,  piping,
      underground   utilities,    checkout   of    all
      equipment, and to oversee staff  development  and
      training.

  (b) Not later than 60 days prior to  commencement of
      operation, the grantee shall inform  the State
      or EPA of any problems encountered  in acquiring
      or training personnel.

  (c) Thirty days prior to commencement of operation,
      the grantee shall provide the State and  EPA   an
      itemized  list  of   the  positions   filled,  the
      qualifications of those employed, the assurance
      that the  remaining  vacant  postions will   be
      filled  with  qualified  personnel  as necessary
      for the efficient and effective   operation   and
      maintenance of the  facility.

2.2.3.2 Training

  (a) Within 30 days after  the  Chief Operator   has
      been  retained,  or  after  the   50% completion
      date, whichever is   later,  the   grantee shall
      submit  a  final training schedule  for all pre-
      operational training activities.

  (b) Thirty  days  prior  to  the  commencement    of
      operations, the grantee shall provide the State
      and   EPA  with  a   finalized  plan  (including
      schedules) for continuing training  after start-
      up.   This  plan  shall  include   replacement,
      refresher and upgrade training,  as  well  as such
      special   training    as  safety   and  emergency
      readiness.  The plan  also  shall  provide   for
      such  classroom  and  on-the-job training as is
      necessary to qualify personnel for  the  various
      positions  for  initial  start-up  of the waste
      treatment   facility    and    for     operation
      thereafter.
                   10
-------
2.2.4 Operations phase

    2.2.4.1 Staff

          The grantee shall provide a staff of  qualified
          personnel  that  1s  adequate  to  operate  the
          facility    efficiently    and     effectively.
          Qualified  personnel   shall  be  those  meeting
          requirements    established     under     State
          certification  programs  or  other requirements
          established   by   the   State   and    Federal
          governments.

    2.2.4.2 Compensation

          The  grantee  shall   pay   adequate   salaries
          commensurate  with duties, responsibilities and
          other conditions of employment.
                       11
-------
3.0 RECORDS. REPORTS. AND LABORATORY  CONTROL
    3.1 A permanent record  file  for  the  treatment  plant  and
        collection  system  shall  be maintained by the grantee at
        each of its waste treatment plants or at some appropriate
        location readily accessible to the  operating  personnel.
        The file should include:

        3.1.1 The  operation  and  maintenance  manual  for   the
            wastewater  treatment  facility.  (See Appendix, page
            42)

        3.1.2 Planning reports, design criteria and other related
            data.

        3.1.3 All as-built plans, specifications,  drawings,  and
            manufacturers' specifications and recommendations for
            operation and maintenance of each unit.

        3.1.4 Appropriate  flow  charts  indicating  the   system
            process operation.

        3.1.5 The NPDES Discharge Permit.

    3.2 Complete and accurate plant operating  records  shall  be
        maintained.

        3.2.1 These records serve to guide  plant  operating  and
            process  control  personnel  and become the source of
            historical data on the  precise  performance  of  the
            facility.   Plant  operating  reports  can  often  be
            standardized, but it is of prime importance that  the
            information  and  related  forms  be tailored to each
            operation in order to be effective.  Significant data
            should also be graphed for visual display.

        3.2.2 The grantee shall routinely   file  plant  operating
            records  with  the appropriate  State agency.  Monthly
            reports of daily operating records are needed by  the
            State  regulatory  agencies  in  carrying  out  their
            responsibilities  to  monitor   and  maintain  maximum
            operating efficiencies.
                               12
-------
3.3 Adequate monitoring, sampling and analysis   of  flows   is
    fundamental  to good operation and maintenance.

    3.3.1 The  influent  should  be  monitored,   sampled  and
        analyzed  so  as  to  determine  the rate of flow  and
        characteristics of  the  wastewater  to   be  treated.
        Effluent monitoring and reporting shall  be stipulated
        in  the  NPUES  permit.  Optimum control of treatment
        processes may require up-line sampling and testing at
        strategic points throughout the collection system   to
        pinpoint  locations  that contribute abnormal  amounts
        of a given constituent.

    3.3.2 Appropriate  monitoring,  sampling, and   analysis
        shall  be  conducted  through  each  process so as to
        Indicate  any  adjustments  necessary to  provide  a
        continuous high quality effluent.

    3.3.3 The plant effluent shall be monitored  to  determine
        compliance   with  the  discharge  permit  provisions
        contained in PL 92-500.

    3.3.4 Wherever possible, the receiving  water  should   be
        monitored  to  determine  the  effect of  the  plant
        effluent in relation to water quality standards.
                           13
-------
4.0 PROCESS CONTROL
    4.1 The wastewater treatment plant should  be  operated   so   as
        to  fully  and  effectively  utilize  the  flexibility  in
        process control provided for in the plant design.

        4.1.1 Plant flexibility should be used to get the  maximum
            treatment out of the facility on a day-to-day   basis.
            This  includes making such process adjustments as may
            be indicated by the monitoring system.

        4.1.2 The flexibility in routing flows that  is provided
            in  the  design  shall  be  used  to  allow preventive
            maintenance and repairs to be carried out without by-
            passing the entire  treatment  plant   or  discharging
            inadequacy treated wastewater.

        4.1.3 A total plant bypass shall be used  only as  a  last
            resort  when  necessary  to  protect   the  health and
            welfare  of  operating  personnel   or   to   prevent
            extensive damage to the plant facilities or processes
            or  upstream  property.  All bypassed sewage shall  be
            adequately disinfected.  In  those  cases  where the
            plant bypass must be used:

            4.1.3.1 Where  possible  advanced   approval must  be
              obtained  from the State.  If this  is not possible,
              the State must be notified of the  bypass  promptly
              by telephone.

            4.1.3.2 A complete written report  shall be filed with
              the State.  This report  shall  include  the  date,
              time, quantity of the waste, characteristics of the
              waste, reason for bypassing, steps  taken to  prevent
              recurrence  of the problem, and  any other pertinent
              information considered necessary by the State.

            4.1.3.3 Special  notice   may   be   required,   e.g.
              shellfish, etc.

    4.2 Plant operating personnel must be alert to any trends  or
        changes in the characteristics of the  influent, both on a
        long-range  basis  and on the short-term basis needed for
        day-to-day operations.
                               14
-------
    4.2.1 Operators should maintain continuous  communication
        with  plant  management  and  appropriate  regulatory
        agencies so  that  plant  inadequacies  are  detected
        early,  thus  affording  lead-time  to  diagnose  and
        resolve problems before they impair  quality  control
        in the plant.

    4.2.2 Provision  should  be  made   for   warning   plant
        operators  promptly  of  any  unusual flows or wastes
        that are  discharged  accidentally  or  otherwise  to
        sewers  served by the plant.  Users shall be required
        through local ordinance to immediately  notify  waste
        treatment plants of any such discharges.

4.3 An effective equipment maintenance program  is  necessary
    to insure that all equipment is kept in a highly reliable
    operating  condition.   It  is  the responsibility of the
    plant  management  to  provide   sufficient   funds   for
    maintenance,  repairs, spare parts, and standby equipment
    to  keep  the  plant,  pumping   stations   and   related
    appurtenances operating satisfactorily.

    4.3.1 The maintenance program should include:

        4.3.1.1 The establishment of a control  system  which
          identifies  and  locates  each  piece  of operating
          equipment, a description of the maintenance  needs*
          a  list  of the general procedures for carrying out
          the  job,  and  appropriate   routine   maintenance
          schedules.

        4.3.1.2 A spare-parts inventory to facilitate advance
          ordering of unit parts vital to the  continous  and
          effective operation of the facility.

    4.3.2 Plants  should  have  a   management   system   for
        recording  equipment  maintenance  and repairs.  This
        system  should  permit  an  evaluation  of  equipment
        performance  and of future maintenance or replacement
        of a part or unit with one that is more reliable,

    4.3.3 Preventive maintenance shall  commence  immediately
        upon installation of the equipment and not be delayed
        until the facility is placed in operation.
                           15
-------
4.3.4 When possible, major maintenance jobs  and  repairs
    necessitating   a   shut-down  of  a  unit  shall   be
    scheduled when It will have the least effect on waste
    treatment efficiency and the- receiving waters.
                       16
-------
5.0 SAFETY
    5.1 PL 92-500 Basis

        Section 204(a)(4) of  PL  92-500  requires   assurance   of
        proper  and  efficient  operation  of facilities.   Safety
        will  be  considered  an  integral   component   of  such
        assurances.    Safety   of   personnel,   and  safety  and
        operational integrity of equipment  directly  affect  the
        capability of a facility to perform its  design functions.
        Therefore,  both  design for safety and  safety procedures
        must  be   considered   in   engineering   for   proposed
        facilities.

    5.2 Relation to OSHA

        Section 18(b) of  Public  Law  91-59b,  the  Occupational
        Safety and Health Act of 1970 provides that any State  may
        assume  responsibility for development and  enforcement of
        occupational safety and health standards.   One  condition
        under this responsibility is that the State shall  assure,
        "...  to  the extent permitted by its law ... (a)  program
        applicable to all employees of  ...   the State  and  its
        political subdivisions ..."

        This  provision  ultimately will assure  for participating
        States  that  all  wastewater  treatment facilities  are
        covered at the State level by safety and health standards
        and are subject to equivalent requirements  and actions to
        those contained in Federal legislation.

    5.3 Grantee Responsibility

        5.3.1 Grantees   should   determine   the    status    of
            occupational   safety   and   health   programs   and
            legislation  in  their  State  and  provide  in-plant
            programs   that   are  consistent with  existing   or
            projected State requirements.

        5.3.2 Construction     contractors      assigned      the
            responsibilities  for building facilities are  already
            covered  by   the   Federal   legislation   and   are
            responsible  for  the  safety  and  health  of  their
            employees.  Therefore, it is in  the grantee's best
                               17
-------
        interest  to  review  the  contractor's  activities  to
        avoid  potential   delays  due   to   infractions   of
        applicable construction standards.
5.4 Guidance Sources
    5.4.1 The Environmental  Protection  Agency  has  prepared
        two   technical    bulletin   supplements   to   these
        guidelines:
          a.  Safety in the  Design  of  Wastewater  Treatment
          Works
          b.  Safety in  the  Operation  and  Maintenance  of
          Wastewater Treatment Works
        These  documents  are  available as aids to analyzing
        hazards and establishing responsive safety and health
        programs.
    5.4.2 Other sources of aid, guidance and training are:
          a.  State Occupation Safety and Health Agencies
          b.  OSHA-Regional  Offices
          c.  EPA Regional Offices
          d.  Professional and Technical Associations
                           18
-------
6.0 EMERGENCY OPERATING PLAN


    6.1 To protect the health and  welfare  of  municipal   waste-
        water  treatment plant personnel,  and to minimize  adverse
        effects in times  of  emergencies,  wastewater  treatment
        facilities  constructed  under  P.L  92-500 grants should
        have included in the operation and maintenance manual,   a
        section  establishing  a comprehensive plan for emergency
        operating procedures.

    6.2 Wastewater Treatment equipment suppliers  should  include
        emergency  operating  instructions  with  all   equipment.
        This will enable the consulting engineer  to  incorporate
        this   information  as  he  prepares  the  operation   and
        maintenance  manual.   Also,  the   consulting   engineers,
        using  emergency  equipment  instructions,  may make  an
        evaluation of equipment with regard to flexibility during
        emergencies.  An evaluation of this type will  allow plant
        personnel to  respond  more  efficiently  to  emergencies
        affecting the equipment.

    6.3 The plan  should  insure  the  most  effective  operation
        possible under emergency conditions.

    6.4 The plan should protect the  waste  treatment   facilities
        under all foreseeable emergency conditions.  It should  be
        complete and comprehensive and should include, but not  be
        limited to, the following:

              a.  Effects of Emergencies

              b.  Vulnerability Analysis of the System

              c.  Protective Measures

              d.  Responses to Emergencies

              e.  Emergency Response Program

    6.5 The emergency operating plan  must  be  periodically   up-
        dated to insure current measures and responses are valid.
        Mutual  aid  agreements  and  notification procedures may
        change and must be validated periodically to  enable   the
        emergency operating plan to function properly.
                               19
-------
7.0 MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT
    7.1 General
        Section 204(a)(4)  of the  Act  requires   the   grantee   to
        provide  assurance  that  a  plant will   be  staffed with
        qualified personnel  and that  it  will  be operated   and
        maintained  in  accordance  with  an  operational  plan.  A
        maintenance management system is an   essential   component
        of the required operational plan.

    7.2 Requirements

        The grantee should begin development  of   the   maintenance
        management  system at the design stage.   Components to be
        considered during design are:

        7.2.1 Equipment numbering system should   be  assigned   in
            some  logical   order  to plant equipment  so that both
            equipment function and location are   evident  in   the
            identification number.

        7.2.2 An equipment  catalog  should  be   prepared  during
            equipment  installation  displaying  plant identifying
            codes, manufacturer and vendor information, equipment
            description and other pertinent information.

        7.2.3 Supporting equipment records should be  developed as
            appropriate to  the  size  of  the  plant.   However,
            minimum  requirements would include  a maintenance  log
            or its equivalent for  each  unit  operation  of  the
            facility.   Such  records  should include:  equipment
            code and serial number; date  maintenance  performed;
            name(s)  of  worker(s)  assigned;  time  required   to
            complete   scheduled   or   corrective   maintenance;
            supplies/parts used.

        7.2.4 Maintenance and trouble  shooting   guide  documents
            for each unit process and supporting equipment.

        Several  of the above items are also subject to inclusion
        1n the O&M manual.  The intent of this section is not   to
        require  duplication  of such items, only to assure their
        availability.
                               20
-------
7.3 Other Considerations

    Effective maintenance management 1s also  a  function  of
    how   well   maintenance   requirements  and  work  force
    capabilities have been considered 1n facility design.  An
    EPA source document, EPA-430-99-74-001,  Design  Criteria
    for  Mechanical Electrical  and Fluid System and Component
    Reliability, covers some maintenance design requirements.

    7.3.1 In  reviewing  maintenance  design   factors,   the
        grantee should also consider:

        7.3.1.1 Maintenance  safety  factors  affecting   the
          protection  of  equipment from damage during normal
          and  maintenance  operations  and  the  safety   of
          maintenance   personnel   while   working   on  the
          equipment.

        7.3.1.2 The   display   of   essential    maintenance
          information  at  or  near  the  equipment  and  the
          methods to be used for display.

        7.3.1.3 Handling, removal and replacement factors  to
          assure that appropriate clearances, connections and
          handling  devices to expedite maintenance have been
          incorporated in major components.

        7.3.1.4 Tool   requirements   avoiding    need    for
          specialized or unique tools where possible.

        7.3.1.5 Alignment  and  keying   requirements   where
          connectors or other devices which must be precisely
          orientated are used.

        7.3.1.6 Manual control  layout requirements  providing
          for  location  and design of controls to facilitate
          maintenance operations.

        7.3.1.7 Workspace configuration covering both on site
          maintenance space and shop layout and design.

        7.3.1.8 Accessability covering design of equipment so
          that all  components  can  be  reached  easily  and
          comfortably  with  tools and test equipment without
          undue effort or removal of other parts.
                           21
-------
7.3.1.9 Special  attention should be given to location
  and accessibility  of  sampling  points.    Junction
  boxes,  access  manholes,  or  pipe  taps  should be
  provided at appropriate locations.
                   22
-------
8.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS
    8.1 The Federal Water Pollution  Control   Act  Amendments   of
        1972 state that:

            No  grant  shall  be made until  the applicant has made
            satisfactory  provision  for  assuring   proper   and
            efficient  operation and maintenance of the treatment
            works after completion of construction.

    8.2 The review of operating manuals will  consider all  factors
        relative to this objective.  The manual must be  reviewed
        and  approved by the State and EPA at least 30 days prior
        to plant start-up.

        8.2.1 The operation and maintenance manual shall  contain
            a  simplified  schematic  diagram of major pipelines,
            valves,  and  controls.   Additional  diagrams  shall
            contain  enlarged detail of complicated piping areas.
            The pipelines, valves, and controls will  be  clearly
            marked   as  referenced  in  the  detailed  operation
            procedures.

        8.2.2 The various  manufacturers'  maintenance  schedules
            (daily,  weekly,   monthly,  etc.) shall be summarized
            with reference to  the  page  in  the  manufacturer's
            operation  and  maintenance  manual.   Also, a cross-
            reference lubricant chart indicating equal lubricants
            produced by  various  major  manufacturers  shall   be
            furnished.

        8.2.3 In regard to types of  treatment  the  manual will
            contain  technical  detail  in  simplified  language,
            describing  precisely  how  each  process  should   be
            operated  and  controlled  for maximum effectiveness.
            Manufacturer's  manuals  should  be  referenced when
            useful to this explanation.

        8.2.4 The operation and maintenance manual shall  contain
            emergency    procedures   and   provide   appropriate
            instructions  to  treatment  facility  personnel   to
            insure that they know their assigned responsibilities
            for properly responding to various types of emergency
                               23
-------
        situations  and  thus  eliminate  or minimize  resulting
        adverse effects from such incidents.

8.3 For further detail  on preparation of O&M  manuals see   EPA
    publication    EPA-430/9-74-001>     Considerations     for
    Preparation of Operation and Maintenance  ManualsT"
                           24
-------
9.0 FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
    Financial  controls are an integral  part of  plant  operation,
    and  should  be  developed  in advance of construction  by  the
    owner.   Such  controls  are  necessary  to  help  management
    provide  a  system for economical  and efficient operation  and
    maintenance.  Financial  responsibility  extends  beyond   the
    routine  and obvious need for care of current public  funds to
    the  need  for  establishing  a  fund  to  provide for   the
    replacement  of  short-lived  equipment  and supplies and  the
    ultimate replacement of the plant itself.

    These  Guidelines  are  not  intended  to  be  all-inclusive.
    However,   the  items  referenced  are  those  which  deserve
    emphasis and any system should include (but  not  be  limited
    to) them.

        Annual budgets should be based on All direct and  indirect
        costs  associated  with  the operation and maintenance of
        the treatment plant, including but not limited to:

            9.1   Employee salaries and benefits.

            9.2   Training costs for entry, update and upgrade of
                  employees.

            9.3   Operation,  maintenance,   administrative   and
                  ancillary equipment and supplies.

            9.4   Power charges and similar expenses for  utility
                    uses.
                               25
-------
10.0 References

        The  following  source  documents  are available from the
    Superintendent of Documents, U.S.  Government Printing Office,
    Washington, D. C.  20402:

    10.1    Considerations  for  Preparation  of  Operation   and
            Maintenance"HanuaT?. EPA-430/9-74-(501

    10.2    Start-up   of   Municipal      Wastewater    Treatment
            Facilities.TPA-430/9/74 008

    10.3    Maintenance  Management   Systems   for   Municipal
            Wastewater~Faci 1 ities, EPA-430/9-74-OU4"

    10.4    Estimating  Staffing   for   Municipal     Wastewater
            Treatment Facilities. March 1973, U.S. EPA

    10.5    Estimating Laboratory Needs for Municipal Wastewater
            Treatment Facilities, "TasF O7d~er No.  5501-00651

    10.6    Emergency Planning for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
            Facilities. EPA-43079r74-013

    10.7    Aspects of State-Wide Emergency Response Programs for
            MunicipaTTtestewater Treatment. EPA 430/9-74-014

    10.8    A Planned Maintenance Management System for Municipal
            ffastewaterTreatment   Plants,    EPA-6W/2-7 3-004,
            November 1973
                                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-582-418:306
                               26
-------
  Supplement to  Federal Guidelines:

       Operation  &  Maintenance

           of  Wastewater  Treatment Facilities
	(September 1970)
 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY - OFFICE OF WATER  PROGRAMS

                              DESIGN SERIES
        TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. D-71-1                     October 15, 1971

                  STORAGE AND HANDLING FACILITIES FOR CHEMICALS
                      UTILIZED IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT

        Purpose
        To ensure that adequate protection is provided wastewater treatment
        plant personnel when chemicals are used in the treatment process.

        Applicability
        This Technical Bulletin provides design guidelines for the safe storage
        and handling of chemicals used in the treatment of wastewater, as
        opposed to those  normally used for laboratory purposes only.
        Definitions
        A hazardous chemical is defined (for the purpose of this Bulletin)
        as any substance, mixture, or compound which is corrosive or  toxic.
          A. Corrosive  Chemical. Any substance, mixture, or compound
             which is capable of destroying living tissue and which has
             a destructive effect on other substances.
          B. Toxic Chemical.  Any gas, liquid, or solid which, through
             its chemical properties, can produce injurious or lethal
             effects.
-------
Background

The quantity of chemicals utilized in the treatment of wastewater
has increased significantly in recent years and will continue to
increase in the future due to the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities providing very high degrees 'of treatment for
nutrient removal or other substances requiring more sophisticated
treatment processes.  The use of these chemicals requires that certain
safety measures be designed into treatment facilities in order to
protect supervisory, operating, and other personnel.  At the present
time, several references are available presenting criteria to ensure the
design of safe wastewater treatment facilities.  Two such references are:

     1.   "Sewage Treatment Plant Design," Manual of Practice No. 8,
          Water Pollution Control Federation, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue,
          Washington, D. C.  20016.

     2.   "Safety in Wastewater Works," Manual of Practice No. 1, Water
          Pollution Control Federation.

The guidelines presented here for the design of storage and handling
facilities for hazardous chemicals are intended to supplement these
references and are specifically oriented to those chemicals commonly
used in wastewater treatment (sodium hydroxide, methyl alcohol, iron
and aluminum salts, polymers, etc.).
Action

For projects seeking Federal funds under PL 84-660, as amended, ensure
that the following provisions  (in addition to the requirements of
applicable State, local, and/or other Federal regulations) are met:

     A.   Storage and Handling Facilities for Chlorine.  The  information
          contained in the "Chlorine Manual"  (published by the Chlorine
          Institute, Inc., 342 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017)  in
          conjunction with that contained in WPCF Manuals of  Practice No.  1
          and No. 8 should be  the basis for design of storage and handling
          facilities for chlorine.  Further information on the subject is
          contained in many publications, including those of  chlorine
          manufacturers.  However, deviation  from the basic material
          contained in these three documents  is not recommended.
-------
B.   Storage and Handling Facilities for Chemicals other than Chlorine.

     1.   Material's and devices for use in storing, transporting,
          mixing, or in any way contacting, or expected to be in
          contact with hazardous chemicals should be compatible with
          the chemical(s) involved.  This includes, but is not limited
          to, storage tanks, piping, pumps, valves, splash or spray
          guards, drains, metering devices, and tank and pipe supports.
          Buried piping and storage tanks should also be coated to
          retard corrosive action.

          References available for determining the specific properties
          and effects of the chemical(s) involved include:

          a.   "Chemical Data Guide for Bulk Shipment by Water,"
               U.S. Coast Guard Publication No. CG-388.  Available from
               U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
               20402.

          b.   "Chemical Safety Data Sheets," Manufacturing Chemists
               Association, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington,
               D. C.  20009.

          c.   "Evaluation of the Hazard of Bulk Water Transportation
               of Industrial Chemicals," National Research Council.
               Available from Clearinghouse for Federal, Scientific
               and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia
               22151 as PB 189845.

          d.   "Hazardous Chemical Data," Publication No. 49, National
               Fire Protection Association, 60 Batterymarch Street,
               Boston, Massachusetts  02110.

          e.   "Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials," 3rd
               Editibn, N. Irving Sax, Reinhold Book Corporation, New
               York, N.Y., 1968.

          f.   "Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology," Volume II, 2nd
               Edition, F. A. Patty, Interscience Publishers,
               New York, N.Y., 1963.

          g.   "Water Treatment Plant Design," American Water Works
               Association, 2 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016.

     2.   Dikes or curbs capable of holding the stored volume plus a
          safety factor of 25 percent should be provided in each
          liquid chemical storage area.

     3.   Adequate drainage should be provided in all chemical storage
          and working areas.  In no case should these drains discharge
          directly into sewers, streams, or treatment plant flow.  Pre-
          ferably, spilled material should drain to a sump from which
          it can be disposed of safely or recovered for further use.
-------
4.    Adequate ventilation should be provided in all areas in
     which hazardous chemical mist or dust is present.   Where
     general or space ventilation is utilized, a minimum of
     fifteen (15) complete air changes per hour should be pro-
     duced.  Waste air should be cleaned prior to discharge to
     the outer atmosphere to reduce contaminants to acceptable
     limits.

5.    Dust collection equipment should be provided to protect
     operating personnel from dusts hazardous to their health
     and to prevent walkways from becoming slippery.

6.    Piping systems for the transportation of hazardous
     chemicals should meet the following requirements:

     a.   All joints and connections, permanent or temporary,
          should have splash guards capable of directing
          leakage away from areas occupied by personnel.

     b.   All piping should be identified with labels as to
          the material being transported.  Color coding is
          not an adequate substitute for labeling, but should
          also be used.  Labels should be spaced no further
          than ten feet apart and at least one label is
          required in each room, closet, or pipe chase.

     c.   Piping should be adequately supported and sloped.

7.    All pumps or feeders for hazardous chemicals should have
     effective spray guards.

8.    Eye wash fountains and safety showeres meeting the following
     requirements should be provided:

     a.   The distance between eye wash fountain or shower and
          further possible point of hazardous chemical exposure
          should not exceed 25 feet.

     b.   Potable water should be utilized in each.

     c.   Eye wash fountain should be capable of providing
          30 minutes of continuous eye irrigation.

     d.   Safety shower should be capable of providing
          30 to 50 gpm at pressures of 20 to 50 psi.  Shower
          nozzle should be 7 to 8 feet above floor level.

     e.   Some form of alarm system should be available to alert
          other personnel when either eye wash fountain or
          safety shower is being used.
-------
          9.   All storage containers, permanent or temporary, should be
               properly labeled as to contents in accordance with
               Manufacturing Chemists Association Publication L-l, "Guide
               to the Precautionary Labeling of Hazardous Chemicals."

          10.  Areas in which chemicals are stored should be cool and free
               from moisture.  Ensure also that chemicals which react
               violently with each other are not stored in close proximity
               to each other.

          11.  Adequate storage space and facilities should be available
               for safety equipment (masks, goggles, portable blowers, etc.)
               to prevent their damage.

          12.  Storage facilities for emergency first-aid equipment should
               be adequate in size and in close proximity to hazardous
               areas.  Preferably, one such facility should be located
               in each area where hazardous chemicals are present.

          13.  All areas in which hazardous chemicals are stored or
               utilized should be posted with signs giving adequate
               warning and instructions to be followed in case of
               emergency.

The above steps are aimed at protectiong plant personnel basically
through preventing accidental releases of hazardous chemicals.
However, it should be recognized that accidental releases may occur and
adequate plans should be developed for handling such occurrences in
order to protect the environment as well as personnel.  EPA has developed
guidelines relating to the prevention and control of spillage of hazardous
polluting substances and for the development of contingency plans for
such spills.  It is recommended that these guidelines be used as the
basis for developing spill prevention and control plans for chemicals
utilized in wastewater treatment facilities.  The following documents
should be consulted (both are available from U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C.  20402):

     1.   Goodier, J.L., et al, "Spill Prevention Techniques for Hazardous
          Polluting Substances," Final Report of EPA-WQO Contract No.
          14-12-927 (Feburary 1971).

     2.   Dawson, G.W., et al, "Control of Spillage of Hazardous Polluting
          Substances," Final Report of FWQA Contract No. 14-12-866
          (November 1970).
-------
 Supplement to Federal Guidelines:     U6SIQI1f



       Operation  &  Maintenance


           of  Wastewater  Treatment Facilities

                                                 (September 1970)

U.  S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY - OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS



                                 DESIGN SERIES

       TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. D-71-2                      October 15, 1971



               USE OF MERCURY IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT


       Purpose

       To establish design criteria with regard to the use of mercury in
       equipment used in wastewater treatment facilities.


       Background

       Mercury has been established as a particularly hazardous source of
       contamination to the aquatic environment.  Ample evidence exists to
       demonstrate that mercury in many different forms is toxic to living
       systems, including man.  Since 1953 a significant number of deaths
       have been reported from mercury poisoning.  There have also been
       reports of deaths of wildfowl attributed to this substance.   It is
       essential, therefore, that all sources of mercury pollution be
       eliminated.  The use of mercury in certain wastewater treatment
       plant devices is one potential source of mercury pollution due to the
       quantity of mercury used, the proximity of the mercury to the wastewater
       being treated, and the high probability of mercury losses reaching
       receiving waters.  Models of these devices in which mercury is not
       utilized are available from most major manufacturers of treatment
       plant equipment.


       Action

       Effective this date, the use of mercury as seals in trickling filter
       flow distributors and comminutors is not acceptable for new wastewater
       treatment facilities constructed under PL 84-660, as amended. Wastewater
-------
treatment facilities for which Federal funding is requested under
PL 84-660 shall be designed to incorporate trickling filter flow
distributors and comminutors in which mercury is not utilized.  Further,
all other equipment, devices, and/or appurtenances in which mercury is
incorporated and which are intended for use in new wastewater treatment
facilities shall be listed and fowarded for approval by the State
water pollution control agency and the Office of Water Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, prior to construction and installation.
-------
 Supplement to  Federal Guidelines:     iJBSIQH,

       Operation  &  Maintenance

           of Wastewater  Treatment Facilities
             	(September  1970)
U.  S. ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY - OFFICE OF  WATER PROGRA/V

                                 DESIGN SERIES
       TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO.  D-71-3                       October  15, 1971

                USE OF NEW AND ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
       Purpose

       To modify the Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation and Maintenance
       of Wastewater Treatment Facilities with regard to requirements for
       proposed Section 8, PL 84-660 projects utilizing new and  advanced
       wastewater treatment technology.
       Background

       The  application of the latest available technological advances to
       this generation of wastewater treatment facilities holds a high
       priority within the Environmental Protection Agency.  In order to
       meet established water quality standards within defined implementation
       time frames, it is essential that advanced waste treatment techniques
       (processes designed to remove pollutants not normally removed by
       conventional secondary treatment processes) and improvements in
       conventional waste treatment methods be incorporated in the President's
       expanded program for construction of wastewater treatment facilities.
       A Technology Transfer Program has been established within the
       Environmental Protection Agency to disseminate information on currently
       available technology to potential users to assure that treatment facilities
       presently being planned will take advantage of the latest developments.
       In addition, new technology will be transmitted as it is developed in
       order to be available for wastewater treatment facilities that will be
       planned, designed, and constructed in the immediate future.
-------
To encourage the use of such technological developments, the Federal
Guidelines relating to Section 8, PL 84-660 projects incorporating
new treatment processes or equipment (Part B, Section VI)  have been
modified.  The specific reference to performance guarantees has been
removed; and the requirement for prior approval of the State and
FWQA (EPA-OWP) before preparation of plans and specifications has
been deleted.  The project specifications must still include performance
criteria acceptable to the State and EPA.  A performance guarantee
may be required for equipment which does not meet a specified
experience period.  However, it is the practice of EPA-OWP to
discourage the general use of experience clauses.  Only in special
cases, and with adequate justification, may an experience clause
be used.
Action

Replace page 23  of the original issuance  (September 1970) of the
Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities with the attached page 23 which
incorporates changes to Part B, Section VI.
-------
VI.  New and Advanced Processes or Equipment




     a.   EPA-Office of Water Programs encourages  the  development




          and application of new approaches- to wastewater




          treatment plant design.




     b.   Aid for the construction and operation of  facilities




          demonstrating experimental processes or  equipment is




          available under the EPA Research, Development  and




          Demonstration Program.




     c.   Section 8, PL 84-660 grant funds  are available for




          facilities incorporating successfully demonstrated




          new processes or equipment, providing the  project is




          reasonable in scope and preliminary investigations are




          favorable.  In such cases, the  contract  specifications




          must include details on performance criteria that are




          acceptable to the State and EPA.









VII. Flexibility and Ease of Operation and  Maintenance




     a.   The design of process piping, equipment  arrangement,




          and unit structures in the facility must allow for




          efficiency and convenience in operation  and  maintenance




          and provide maximum flexibility of operation.   Such
                                23                      (July 1971)




                                  * U. S.-COVF.RNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1971 O - 446- 212
-------
                    TECHNICAL BULLETIN
   DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MECHANICAL,  ELECTRIC,
  AND FLUID SYSTEM AND COMPONENT RELIABILITY
        Supplement to Federal Guidelines for Design,
        Operation, and Maintenance of Waste Water
                    Treatment Facilities
                         (issued 1974)
             Office of Water Program Operations
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Washington, D. C.  20460
For sale by the Superintendent ol Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 • Price 86 cents
-------
                          FOREWORD
In response to the recent clean water legislation, this country
will undertake an unprecedented building program for new and
improved municipal wastewater treatment works.   It is the
responsibility of the EPA to ensure that the Federal funds
authorized under Title II of PL 92-500 for this program will
be Justifiably spent.  Accordingly, we must ensure that these
works have been designed with a high degree of technical
excellence and will operate effectively day in and day out.
As a part of this effort, this Technical Bulletin provides
a national standard to help ensure that unacceptable degradation
of the works' effluent does not occur from time to time as
a result of periodic maintenance or the malfunctioning of
mechanical, electric, and fluid systems and components.

To assure a workable and effective document, we have involved
all sectors of the wastewater treatment industry in the develop-
ment and review of this Technical Bulletin.  In this regard,
I particularly wish to thank the EPA Technical Advisory Group
for Municipal Waste Water Systems for their advice and counsel.

The design criteria contained in this Technical Bulletin are
meant to be specific enough to have force and meaning, yet
have administrative flexibility so as to permit innovation as
to how the intent of the criteria will be met in each individual
case.  It is our intent to update and revise these criteria
as experience dictates.

I am confident that through the continued efforts and coopera-
tion of the engineering profession, the objective of improved
reliability of wastewater treatment works will be achieved.
                           Robert L. Sansom
                        Assistant Administrator
                       for Air and Water Programs
-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                              Page


Foreword                                                       i

Purpose                                                        1

Applicability of Technical  Bulletin                               1

Definitions                                                      2

Terms Used in Specifying  Criteria                               4

Reliability Classification                                        5

100.   Works Design Criteria                                   7

200.   System Design Criteria                                 14

   210.   Wastewater Treatment System                        15
   220.   Sludge Handling and Disposal System                  30
   230.   Electric Power  System                               38
   240.   Instrumentation and Control Systems                  47
   250.   Auxiliary Systems                                   49
                                 11
-------
                DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MECHANICAL,
                ELECTRIC.  AND FLUID SYSTEM AND
                    COMPONENT RELIABILITY
Purpose

          The purpose of this Technical Bulletin is to amplify and

supplement the Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation, and Mainte-

nance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities with regard to establishing

minimum standards of reliability for mechanical, electric, and fluid

systems and components.  This Technical Bulletin provides reliability

design criteria for wastewater treatment works projects seeking

Federal financial assistance under PL 92-500.


Applicability of Technical Bulletin

          New treatment works and  additions or expansions to existing

treatment works shall comply with this Technical Bulletin.  Portions

of existing works, for which the addition or expansion is dependent for

reliable operation, shall comply with this Technical Bulletin to the

degree  practicable.   There may  be  some  treatment works  for  which

fulfillment of some of the  design criteria may not be necessary or

appropriate.  There will be other cases in which these criteria are

insufficient, and additional criteria will be identified by the Regional

Administrator. It is expected that additional criteria may be needed

                                  -1-
-------
for unusual environmental conditions and for new processes.  Within




this context, the design criteria should be used as a reference, allowing




additions or deletions as an individual  case may warrant.




          A basic requirement specified in these criteria is component




backup.  However, system reliability can also be attained through




flexibility in the design and operation of systems and components.  This




document does not attempt to define requirements for system flexibility.






Definitions
          The following definitions apply to the terms used in this




Technical Bulletin:




   Component - A single piece of equipment which performs a specific




   function in the wastewater treatment works.  In this context a




   component may be an entire piece of process equipment (e.g.,




   sedimentation basin or vacuum filter) or may be a  single piece of




   equipment (e.g. , a valve or a pump).




   Controlled Diversion - Diversion in a controlled  manner of




   inadequately treated wastewater around the treatment works  to




   navigable waters.




   Design Flow - That flow used as the basis  of design of a component




   and/or system.




   Design Period -  The period of time from first operation to the year




   at which the  treatment works is expected to treat the design flow.
                                  -2-
-------
Effluent Limitation - Any restriction established by a State or the




EPA Administrator on quantities,  rates, and concentrations of




chemical,  physical, biological, and other constituents which are




discharged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of




the contiguous zone,  or  the ocean,  including  schedules of compliance.




Fluid System - A system within the treatment works which contains




liquid or gaseous fluids. This includes the main wastewater treat-




ment system, parts of the sludge handling and disposal system, and




auxiliary  systems.




Hydraulic Capacity - The maximum flow capacity of a component




which does not result in flooding or overflowing.




Navigable Waters - The waters of the United  States, including the




territorial seas, as defined in PL 92-500.




Peak Wastewater Flow - The maximum wastewater flow  expected




during the design period of the treatment works.




Reliability - A measurement of the ability of a component or system




to perform its designated function without failure.   In this Technical




Bulletin,  reliability pertains  to mechanical, electric, and fluid




systems and components only and includes the maintainability of




those systems and components.  Reliability of biological processes,




operator training, process design,  or structural design is not within




the scope of  this Technical Bulletin.  The reliability aspects related
                               -3-
-------
   to works' influent from combined sewers  are not within  the




   scope of this  Technical Bulletin.




   Unit Operation - An operation involving a single physical or chemical




   process.  Examples  of a unit operation are comminuting, mixing,




   sedimentation, aeration, and flocculation.




   Vital Component - A component whose operation or function is




   required to prevent a controlled diversion,  is required to meet




   effluent limitations,  or  is required to protect other vital components




   from damage.




   Wastewater  Treatment Works - The works  that treats the waste-




   water,  including the associated wastewater pumping or lift stations,




   whether or not the stations are physically a part of the works.




   Holding ponds  or basins are considered included,  whether  or not




   the ponds or basins are physically a part of the works.






Terms Used in Specifying Criteria




          The following are clarifications of terms used in specifying




criteria in this Technical Bulletin:




       Shall - Used to specify criteria which are mandatory.  Depar-




       ture from these criteria requires a Departure Request to be




       submitted by the Grant Applicant and approval of the request




       by the Regional  Administrator.
                                 -4-
-------
   °   Permissible - Used to clarify the intent of mandatory criteria

       by giving examples of designs which are in conformance with

       the criteria.

   0   Consideration and Where Practicable - Used to specify criteria

       which shall be considered by the Grant Applicant, but which are

       not mandatory.


Reliability Classification

          This Technical Bulletin establishes minimum standards of

reliability for three classes of wastewater treatment works.   Unless

identified as applying to a particular class, all criteria contained in

this document apply equally to all three classes.   The reliability  classi-

fication shall be  selected and justified by the Grant Applicant, subject

to the approval of the Regional Administrator, and shall be based on

the consequences of degradation of the effluent quality on the receiving

navigable waters.  This document does  not specify requirements  for

classifying works; however, suggested guidelines are:

Reliability
Class I         Works which discharge into navigable waters that could

                be permanently or unacceptably damaged by effluent

                which was degraded in quality for only a few hours.

                Examples of Reliability Class I works might be those

                discharging near drinking water  reservoirs, into

                shellfish waters, or in  close  proximity to areas used

                for water contact sports.

                                  -5-
-------
Reliability
Class II
Reliability
Class III
Works which discharge into navigable waters that would

not be permanently or unacceptably damaged by short-

term effluent quality degradations,  but could be damaged

by continued (on the order of several days)  effluent

quality degradation.  An example of a Reliability Class II

works might be one which discharges into recreational

waters.


Works not otherwise classified as Reliability Class I

or Class II.

Note;  Pumping stations associated with, but physically
removed from, the actual treatment works  could have
a different classification from the works itself.
                                  -6-
-------
                                               Works Design Criteria
             100.	WORKS DESIGN CRITERIA




                                                            Page




110.    Works Location                                         8




120.    Provisions for Works Expansion and/or Upgrading        9




130.    Piping Requirements                                    9




   131.    Pipes Subject to Clogging                             9




   132.    Provisions for Draining Pipes                       10




   133.    Maintenance and Repair of Feed Lines                10




140.    Component Maintenance and Repair Requirements        11




   141.    Component Repair                                   11




   142.    Component Access Space                            12




   143.    Component Handling                                 12




   144.    Essential Services                                  13




150.    Isolation of Hazardous Equipment                       13
                               -7-
-------
                                                Works Design Criteria
                100.     WORKS DESIGN CRITERIA







110.    WORKS LOCATION




       The potential for damage or interruption of operation due to




       flooding shall be considered when siting the treatment works.




       The treatment works' structures and electrical and mechanical




       equipment shall be protected from physical damage by the




       maximum expected one hundred (100) year flood.  The treatment




       works  shall remain fully operational during the twenty-five (25)




       year flood, if practicable; lesser  flood levels may be permitted




       dependent on local situations, but in no case shall less than a




       ten (10) year flood be used.  Works  located in  coastal areas




       subject to flooding by wave action shall be similarly protected




       from the maximum expected twenty-five (25) and one hundred




       (100) year wave actions.







       Existing works being expanded, modified,  upgraded or rehabili-




       tated shall comply with these criteria to the degree practicable.







       The flood and wave action elevations used  to implement these




       criteria shall be determined and justified by the Grant Applicant,




       using available data sources where  appropriate.  Elevations for







                                 -8-
-------
                                                  Works Design Criteria


       a specific location may be available from local or state studies

       as well as studies by the following Federal organizations: U.S.

       Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.  Geological Survey, U.S. Soil

       Conservation Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

       Administration, and Tennessee Valley Authority.

       The works shall be accessible in all normal seasonal  conditions,

       including the expected annual floods.


120.    PROVISIONS FOR WORKS EXPANSION AND/OR UPGRADING

       All new works and expansions to  existing works  shall  be designed

       for further expansion except where circumstances preclude  the

       probability of expansion.  During a works' upgrading or expansion

       the interruption of normal operation shall be minimized and

       shall be subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.


130.    PIPING REQUIREMENTS
   131.    Pipes Subject to Clogging

   131. 1     Provisions for Flushing of Pipes

             The works shall have provisions for flushing with water

             and/or air all scum lines,  sludge lines,  lime feed and

             lime sludge lines,  and all other lines which are subject to

             clogging.  The design shall be such that flushing can be

             accomplished without causing violation of effluent limita-

             tions or without  cross-connections to the  potable water

             system.
                                 -9-
-------
                                               Works Design Criteria









131.2     Provisions for Mechanical Cleaning of Pipes




          All piping subject to accumulation of solids over a long




          period of time shall have sufficient connections and shall




          be arranged in a manner to facilitate mechanical cleaning.




          This may include the main wastewater treatment process




          piping, service water system piping,  and sludge process




          piping.  Special attention shall be paid to piping containing




          material which has a. tendency to plug, such as scum lines,




          drain lines, and lime sludge lines.  System design shall




          be such that the mechanical cleaning can be accomplished




          without violation of effluent limitations.




132.   Provisions for Draining Pipes




       Where practicable, all piping  shall be  sloped and/or have




       drains (drain  plug or valve) at the low  points to permit  com-




       plete draining.  Piping shall be installed with no isolated




       pockets which cannot be drained.




133.   Maintenance and Repair of Feed Lines




       Lines feeding chemicals or process air to basins, wetwells,




       and tanks shall be designed to enable repair or replacement




       without drainage of the basins, wetwells or tanks.
                              -10-
-------
                                                  Works Design Criteria


140.    COMPONENT MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR REQUIREMENTS

   141.    Component Repair

          Every vital mechanical component (mechanical components

          include such items  as pumps, bar  screens,  instrumentation

          and valves, but not piping, tanks, basins, channels, or wells)

          in the works shall be designed to enable repair or replace-

          ment without violating  the effluent  limitations  or causing a

          controlled diversion.  To comply with this requirement, it

          is permissible to use the collection system  storage capacity

          or holding basins and to perform maintenance during the low

          influent flow periods.  This requirement applies to shutoff

          and isolation valves. Provisions shall be made in the  initial

          works design to  permit repair and replacement of these types

          of valves.

          Example: This criterion applies to the isolation valves of
          main wastewater pumps.  The following are examples  of ways
          these valves could be maintained.  Pump suction isolation
          valves  can be  maintained if the works has a  two compartment
          main pump wetwell and if the works can continue operation
          (during the diurnal  low flow period, for example) with  one
          part of the wetwell  isolated.   Pump discharge isolation valves
          connected to a pressurized outlet header can be maintained
          if the collection  system storage capacity is  sufficiently large
          to permit all main wastewater pumps to be stopped (collection
          system storage capacity is used) while the valve in question
          is removed and blind flanges installed.
                                -11-
-------
                                              Works Design Criteria


142.    Component Access Space

       Adequate access and removal space shall be provided around

       all components to permit easy maintenance and/or removal

       and replacement without interfering with the operation of

       other equipment.  Components located inside buildings or

       other structures shall be removable without affecting the

       structural integrity of the building or creating a safety hazard.

       Normal disassembly of the component is permissible for

       removal and replacement.   This criterion is not intended to

       be applicable to the removal or  replacement of large tanks,

       basins,  channels,  or  wells.

       Note; This  criterion  requires that consideration be given to
       the sizing of doors, stairways,  hallways, hatches, elevators
       and other access ways in the initial works design.  It also
       requires that special  thought be given to the physical layout
       of piping systems and components in the initial design,
       especially to components located above and below the ground
       level of buildings and to unusually large components.  The
       complete path of removal from in-plant  location, through
       hatches, doors and passageways, to a truck or other service
       vehicle  should be checked and defined for each component.

143.    Component Handling

       The works  shall have lifting and handling equipment available

       to aid in the maintenance and replacement of all components.

       In addition,  the placement of structures and other devices,

       such as pad-eyes and hooks, to  aid component handling shall

       be considered in the initial design.  This is particularly
                              -12-
-------
                                                 Works Design Criteria








          important for large and/or heavy components which require




          special handling and lifting equipment.  Means shall be





          provided for removal of components located above and below





          the ground level of buildings  and other structures. This





          criterion is not intended to be applicable to the removal or





          replacement of large tanks, basins, channels, or wells.




   144.    Essential Services





          Essential services,  such as water, compressed air,  and





          electricity, shall be made available throughout the works





          where required for cleaning, maintenance,  and repair work.





          To facilitate cleaning wetwells,  tanks, basins and beds, water





          (supplied from a non-potable water system  or the works'





          effluent)  shall be supplied at  these points by means of a




          pressurized water system with hydrants or hose  bibs having




          minimum outlet  diameters of one inch.







150.    ISOLATION OF HAZARDOUS EQUIPMENT





       Equipment  whose failure could be hazardous to personnel or to




       other equipment shall have means for isolation,  such as  shutoff




       valves,  or  shutoff switches and  controls located  away from the





       equipment to permit safe shutdown during emergency conditions.
                                 -13-
-------
                                              System Design Criteria
                200.	SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA

                                                            Page


210.   Wastewater  Treatment System                          15

   211.    System Requirements                               15

   212.    Component  Backup Requirements                    18

   213.    Component  Design Features and Maintenance         25
            Requirements


220.   Sludge Handling and Disposal System                    30

   221.    System Requirements                               30

   222.    Component  Backup Requirements                    31

   223.    Component  Design Features and Maintenance         35
            Requirements

230.   Electric Power System                                38

240.   Instrumentation and Control Systems                    47

250.   Auxiliary Systems                                     49
                            -14-
-------
                                              System Design Criteria
             200.	SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA







Z10.   WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM




       The wastewater treatment  system includes all components from




       and including the bar screens and wastewater pumps to and




       including the works outfall.




   211.    System Requirements




          The wastewater treatment  system shall be designed to




          include the following:




   211.1     Trash Removal or Comminution




             The system shall contain components to remove and/or




             comminute trash and all other large solids contained in




             the wastewater.




   211.2     Grit Removal




             The system shall contain components to remove grit and




             other heavy inorganic solids from the wastewater.  This




             requirement shall not apply to types of treatment works




             which do not pump or dewater  sludge, such as waste




             stabilization ponds.
                                 -15-
-------
                                             System Design Criteria






211.3     Provisions for Removal of Settled Solids





          All components,  channels,  pump  wells and piping prior to




          the degritting facility or primary sedimentation basin




          shall be accessible for cleaning out settled solids. The





          provisions shall  enable manual or mechanical cleaning of





          equipment on a periodic basis without causing a. controlled





          diversion or causing violation of effluent limitations.





211.4     Treatment Works Controlled Diversion





          Wastewater treatment works shall be provided with a





          controlled diversion channel or pipe sized to handle peak




          wastewater flow.  Actuation of the controlled diversion





          shall be by use of a gravity  overflow.  The overflow





          elevation shall be such that  the maximum feasible storage





          capacity of the wastewater collection system will be  utilized




          before the controlled diversion will be initiated.  The




          controlled diversion flow shall be screened to remove




          large solids unless  the wastewater flow has been previously




          screened.  The actuation of a controlled diversion shall be





          alarmed and annunciated (see Paragraph 243 of this




          Technical Bulletin), and the flow shall be measured and





          recorded.
                               -16-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria






          All Reliability Class I wastewater treatment works shall




          have a holding basin to augment the storage capacity of




          the collection system.  The controlled diversion system




          and the holding basin shall be designed to  permit the




          wastewater  retained by the holding basin to be fully treated




          in the wastewater treatment works.  The capacity  of the




          holding basin shall be  sized by the Grant Applicant based




          on the  constraints and conditions applicable to that specific




          treatment works.




211.5     Unit Operation Bypassing




          The design of the wastewater  treatment system shall




          include provisions for bypassing around each unit  opera-




          tion, except as follows.  The  term unit operation does not




          apply to pumps in the context  of this criterion.  Unit




          operations with two or more units and involving open basins,




          such as sedimentation basins,  aeration basins, disinfectant




          contact basins, shall not be required to have provisions




          for bypassing if the peak wastewater flow can be handled




          hydrauiically with the  largest flow capacity unit out of




          service.   All other unit operations with three or more




          units shall not be required to  have provisions for bypassing




          if the peak wastewater flow can be handled hydrauiically




          with the two largest flow capacity units out of service.





                               -17-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria





          The comminution facility shall be provided with a means




          for bypassing regardless of the number and flow capacity




          of the commlnutors.






          The bypassing system for each unit operation shall be




          designed to provide control of the diverted flow such that




          only that portion of the flow in  excess of the hydraulic




          capacity of the units in service need be bypassed.  With




          the exception of the comminution facility, which shall have




          a gravity overflow, the actuation of all other unit operation




          bypasses shall require manual action by operating personnel.




          All power actuated bypass  valve operators shall be designed




          to enable actuation with loss of power and shall be designed




          so that the valve will fail as is, upon failure of the power




          operator.  A disinfection facility having a bypass shall




          contain  emergency provisions for disinfection  of the bypassed




          flow.






212.   Component Backup Requirements




       Requirements for backup components for the main wastewater




       treatment  system are specified below for Reliability Class I,




       II,  and III  works.






       Except as  modified below,  unit operations in the main waste-




       water treatment system shall be designed such that, with the




       largest flow capacity unit out of service,  the hydraulic




                              -18-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria





       capacity (not necessarily the design-rated capacity) of the




       remaining units shall be sufficient to handle the peak  waste -




       water flow.   There shall be system flexibility to enable the




       wastewater  flow to any unit out of service to be distributed





       to the remaining units in service.






       Equalization basins or tanks shall not be considered a substi-





       tute for component backup requirements.





212. 1     Reliability Class I




          For components included in the design of Reliability Class I





          works, the following backup requirements apply.





212. 1. 1      Mechanically-Cleaned Bar Screens or Equivalent Devices





             A backup bar screen shall  be  provided.  It is permissible




             for the backup bar screen to be  designed for manual





             cleaning only.  Works with only two bar screens shall




             have at least one bar screen designed to permit manual




             cleaning.




212. 1.2      Pumps




             A backup pump shall be provided for  each set of pumps




             which performs the same function.  The capacity of the




             pumps shall be such that with any one pump out of





             service, the  remaining  pumps will have capacity to




             handle the peak flow. It is permissible for one pump





             to  serve as backup to more than one set of pumps.






                              -19-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria


212.1.3      Comminution Facility

             If comminution of the total wastewater flow is provided,

             then an overflow bypass with an installed manually- or

             mechanically-cleaned bar screen shall be provided.

             The hydraulic capacity of the comminutor overflow

             bypass shall be sufficient to pass the peak flow  with all

             comminution units out of service.

212.1.4      Primary Sedimentation Basins

             There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size,

             such that with the largest flow  capacity unit out of

             service,  the remaining units shall have a design flow

             capacity  of at least 50 percent  of the total design flow

             to that unit operation.

212.1.5      Final and Chemical Sedimentation Basins,  Trickling
             Filters,  Filters and Activated  Carbon Columns

             There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size,

             such that with the largest flow  capcity  unit out  of

             service,  the  remaining units shall have a design flow

             capacity  of at least 75 percent of the total design flow

             to that unit operation.

212.1.6      Activated Sludge Process Components

212.1.6.1      Aeration Basin

                A backup basin shall not be  required; however, at
                              -20-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria






                least two equal volume basins shall be provided.




                (For the  purpose of this criterion,  the two zones of




                a contact stabilization process are  considered as




                only one basin.)




212.1.6.2       Aeration Blowers or Mechanical Aerators




                There shall be a sufficient number  of blowers or




                mechanical aerators to enable the design oxygen




                transfer to be maintained with the largest capacity




                unit out of service.   It is  permissible for the backup




                unit to be an uninstalled unit, provided that the




                installed unit can be easily removed and replaced.




                However, at least two units shall be installed.




212.1.6.3       Air Diffusers




                The air diffusion system for each aeration basin




                shall be designed such that the largest section of




                diffusers can be isolated without measurably




                impairing the  oxygen transfer capability of the




                system.




212.1.7      Chemical Flash Mixer




             At least two mixing basins or a backup means for




             adding and mixing chemicals, separate from the basin,




             shall be provided.  If only one basin is provided, at




             least two mixing  devices and a bypass  around the basin






                             -21-
-------
                                             System Design Criteria


             shall be provided.  It is permissible for one of the

             mixing devices to be uninstalled, provided that the

             installed unit can be  easily removed and replaced.

212.1.8      Flocculation Basins

             At least two flocculation basins  shall be provided.

212.1.9      Disinfectant Contact  Basins

             There  shall be a. sufficient number of units of a size,

             such that with the largest flow capacity unit out of

             service, the remaining  units shall have a design flow

             capacity of at least 50 percent of the total design flow

             to that unit operation.

212.2     Reliability Class II

          The Reliability Class I  requirements shall apply except

          as modified below.

212.2.1      Primary and Final Sedimentation Basins and Trickling
             Filters

             There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size

             such that,  with the largest flow  capacity unit out  of

             service, the remaining  units shall have a design  flow

             capacity of at least 50 percent of the  design basis flow

             to that unit operation.
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







212.2.2      Components Not Requiring Backup




             Requirements for backup components in the wastewater




             treatment system shall not be mandatory for components




             which are used to provide treatment in excess of typical




             biological (i.e. , activated sludge or trickling filter),




             or equivalent physical/chemical treatment, and disin-




             fection.  This may include such components as:




                Chemical Flash Mixer




                Flocculation Basin




                Chemical Sedimentation Basin




                Filter




                Activated Carbon Column




212.3     Reliability Class III




          The Reliability Class I  requirements shall apply except




          as modified below.




212.3.1      Primary and Final Sedimentation Basins




             There  shall be at least two sedimentation basins.




212.3.2      Activated Sludge Process Components




212.3.2.1       Aeration Basin




                A single basin is  permissible.
-------
                                            System Design Criteria








212.3.2.2       Aeration Blowers or Mechanical Aerators




                There shall be at least two blowers or mechanical





                aerators available for service.  It is permissible





                for one of the units to be uninstalled, provided that





                the installed unit can be easily removed and replaced.





212.3.2.3       Air Diffusers




                The Reliability Class I requirements shall apply.





212.3.3      Components Not Requiring Backup





             Requirements for backup components in the wastewater





             treatment system shall not be mandatory for components





             which are used to provide treatment in excess of primary





             sedimentation and disinfection,  except as modified





             above.  This may include such components as:




                Trickling Filter




                Chemical Flash Mixer




                Flocculation Basin




                Chemical Sedimentation Basin





                Filter





                Activated Carbon Column
                              -24-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria


213.   Component Design Features and Maintenance Requirements

213. 1     Provisions for Isolating Components

          Each component shall have provisions to enable it to be

          isolated from the flow stream to permit maintenance and

          repair of the component without interruption of the works'

          operation.  Where practicable,  simple shutoff devices,

          such as stop  logs and slide gates, shall be used.

213. 1. 1      Main Wastewater System Pump Isolation

             The use of in-line valves to isolate the main wastewater

             pumps  shall be minimized.  It is permissible to place

             shutoff valves on the suction and  discharge  lines of

             each pump.  However, in such a  case, alternate means

             shall be provided for stopping flow through  the pump

             suction or discharge lines to permit maintenance on the

             valves.

                Example:  Pump discharge isolation and check
                valves are not needed if the pumps have  a free
                discharge  into an open channel rather than dis-
                charging into a pressurized discharge header.
                Pump suction isolation valves can be maintained
                if the plant has a  two compartment wetwell design
                and if £he plant can continue operation (during the
                diurnal low-flow period,  for example) with one
                part of the wetwell isolated.
                              -25-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







213.2     Component Protection




213.2.1      Protection from Overload




             Components or parts of components subject to clogging,





             blockage,  binding  or other overloads shall be protected




             from damage due to the overload.  Examples of com-





             ponents requiring  protection include the rake mechanism





             of bar  screens,  comminuting equipment, the grit-




             removal mechanism in degritting facilities,  and sludge





             and scum  arms  of sedimentation basins.





213.2.2      Protection from Freezing





             Components or parts of components which are wetted





             and subject to freezing shall be designed to ensure




             that the components will be operable during winter





             climatic conditions anticipated at the works.  Examples




             of components or  parts of  components which may require




             protection include bar screens, comminuting equipment,




             the grit-rernoval mechanism in degritting facilities,




             mechanical aerators and the scum arm of sedimentation





             basins.




213.2.3      Protection from Up-Lift Due to Ground Water





             In-ground tanks and basins shall be protected from





             up-lift due to ground water.  If sufficient ballast is not




             provided in each tank or basin, other means for ground




             water relief shall be provided.



                               -26-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







213.3     Slide Gates




          Consideration shall be given to providing mechanical





          operators or other mechanical assistance for slide gates





          which, due to their size or infrequent use, may not be





          easily removable by manual means alone.





213.4     Bar Screens or Equivalent Devices




213.4.1      Provisions for  Manual Cleaning





             Manually-cleaned bar screens or mechanically-cleaned




             bar screens which can be manually cleaned shall have





             accessible platforms above the bar screen from which





             the operator can rake screenings easily and safely when





             the screens are in operation.





213.4.2      Provisions for  Lifting and Handling Equipment




             The design of the equipment and the works shall contain





             provisions for easily and  safely lifting and handling all




             parts  of a mechanically-cleaned bar screen.  Special




             attention shall be given to the proper  location of eyes,





             rails, and hooks located above  the  equipment to facilitate




             lifting and handling.





213.5     Comminution Equipment and Degritting Facility





          All mechanical components shall be easily removable for





          maintenance and repair.
                             -27-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria






213.6     Sedimentation Basins




          The main drive mechanism and reducing gears  shall be




          maintainable and repairable without draining the basin.




          The number of other operating parts which require draining




          the basin for repair and maintenance shall be minimized.




213.7     Aeration Equipment




213.7.1      Component Maintenance




             Mechanical aerators or air diffusers shall be easily




             removable from the  aeration tank to permit maintenance




             and repair without interrupting operation  of the aeration




             tank or inhibiting operation of the other aeration equip-




             ment.




213.7.2      Filtration of Air




             If air is supplied to fine bubble diffusers, air filters




             shall be provided in  numbers, arrangement and capac-




             ities to furnish at all times an air supply sufficiently




             free from dust to minimize clogging of the diffusers.




213.8     Chemical Mixing Basin and Flocculation Basin




213.8.1      Component Maintenance




             The mixing and flocculating devices shall be completely




             removable from the  basin  to allow maintenance and




             repair of the device, preferably  without draining  the




             basin.





                              -28-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria



213.8.2      Chemical Feed Line Cleaning


             Chemical feed lines shall be designed to permit their


             being cleaned or replaced without draining the mixing


             basin or interrupting the normal flow through the basin.

                                                             *
213.8.3      Provisions for Isolation


             Isolation valves or gates for the mixing or flocculation


             basin shall be designed to minimize the problems


             associated with operation of these devices after long


             periods of idleness and the  resulting buildup of chemical


             deposits.  Access and capability for cleaning debris


             and deposits  which interfere with valve or gate closure


             shall be provided.


213.9     Filters and Activated Carbon Columns


          There shall be easy  access to  the interior of carbon


          columns and filters to permit maintenance and repair of


          internal mechanisms.
                             -29-
-------
                                               System Design Criteria


220.   SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM

       This system includes all components and unit processes from

       the sludge pumps servicing the sedimentation basins to the

       final disposal  of waste products,  including ancillary components.

       Sludge disposal includes the special handling and treatment of

       sludge bypassing a normal stage  of treatment.  In  some treatment

       works  the system may also include processes  such as recalci-

       nation  of lime or regeneration of activated carbon.

   221.    System Requirements

          The sludge handling and disposal system  shall be designed

          to include the  following:

   221. 1    Alternate Methods of Sludge Disposal and/or  Treatment

            Alternate methods of sludge disposal and/or treatment

             shall be provided for  each  sludge treatment unit operation

            without installed backup capability.

   221.2     Provisions for Preventing  Contamination of Treated
            Wastewater

            All connections (sludge, scum, filtrate,  supernatant, or

            other  contaminated water flows), direct or indirect, from

             the sludge handling system to the wastewater treatment

             system  shall be at a point in the wastewater  treatment

             system that will ensure adequate treatment.
                                 -30-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







222.   Component Backup Requirements





       For components included in the design of the sludge handling




       and disposal system of Reliability Class I, II, or III works




       the following backup requirements apply.





222. 1     Sludge Holding Tanks




          Holding tanks are permissible as an alternative to com-





          ponent or system backup capability for components down-





          stream of the tank, provided the following requirements




          are met.  The volume of the holding tank shall be based





          on the expected  time necessary to perform maintenance




          and repair of the component in question.  If a holding tank





          is  used as an alternative to backup capability in a sludge





          treatment system which is designed for continuous operation,





          the excess capacity in all components downstream of the





          holding tanks shall be  provided to enable processing the




          sludge which was retained together with the normal sludge





          flow.





222.2     Pumps




          A backup pump  shall be provided for each set of pumps




          which performs the same function.   The  capacity of the




          pumps shall be  such that with any one pump out of service,





          the remaining pumps will have capacity to handle the peak




          flow.   It is  permissible for one pump to serve as backup






                              -31-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria






          to more than one set of pumps.  It is also permissible




          for  the backup pump to be uninstalled,  provided that the





          installed pump can be easily removed and replaced.




          However, at least two pumps shall be installed.





Z2Z.3     Anaerobic Sludge Digestion





222.3.1      Digestion Tanks





             At least two digestion  tanks shall be provided.  At least




             two of the digestion tanks provided shall be designed to




             permit processing all  types of sludges normally digested.





222. 3. 2      Mixing Equipment




             If mixing is required as  part  of the digestion process,





             then each tank requiring mixing shall have sufficient





             mixing equipment or flexibility in system  design to




             ensure that the total capability for mixing is not lost




             when any one piece of  mechanical mixing equipment is




             taken out of service.   It is permissible  for the backup




             equipment not to be installed  (e. g. , a spare uninstalled





             digester gas compressor is permissible if gas mixing





             is  used); not be normally used for sludge mixing (e. g. ,





             sedimentation basin sludge pumps may be used); or  not





             be full capacity (e. g. , two 50 percent-capacity recircu-





             lation pumps would comply with this requirement).
                             -32-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria


222. 4     Aerobic Sludge Digestion

222. 4. 1      Aeration Basin

             A backup basin is not required.

222.4.2      Aeration Blowers or Mechanical Aerators

             At least two blowers or mechanical aerators  shall be

             provided.   It is permissible for less  than design oxygen

             transfer capability to be provided with one unit out of

             service.  It is permissible for the backup unit to be an

             uninstalled unit, provided that the installed unit can be

             easily removed and replaced.

222.4.3      Air Diffusers

             The air diffusion system for each aeration basin shall

             be designed such that the largest section of diffusers

             can be isolated without measurably impairing the oxygen

             transfer capability of the system.

222. 5     Vacuum Filter

          There shall be a sufficient number of vacuum filters to

          enable the design sludge flow to be dewatered with the

          largest capacity vacuum filter  out of service.

          Note:  Since the design basis of sludge dewatering equip-
          ment is often not continuous operation, this criterion does
          not necessarily require additional vacuum filter capacity
          if the installed equipment is operated on less than a 24
          hour-per-day basis and if the normal operating hours can
          be extended on the remaining units to make up the capacity
          lost in the unit out of service.

                              -33-
-------
                                             System Design Criteria


 222. 5. 1     Auxiliary Equipment

             Each vacuum filter  shall be serviced by two vacuum

             pumps and two filtrate pumps.  It is permissible for

             the backup to the normal vacuum or filtrate pump to be

             an uninstalled unit,  provided that the installed unit can

             be easily removed and replaced; or to be  a cross-
ft
             connect line to the appropriate system of  another

             vacuum filter.

 222.6     Centrifuges

           There shall be a sufficient number of centrifuges to enable

           the design sludge flow  to be dewatered with the largest

           capacity centrifuge out of service.  It is permissible for

           the backup unit to be an uninstalled unit,  provided that the

           installed unit can be easily removed and replaced.

           Note:  Since the design basis of sludge dewatering equip-
           ment is often not continuous operation, this  criterion does
           not necessarily require additional equipment if the installed
           equipment is operated  on less than a  24 hour-per-day basis
           and if the normal operating hours can be extended on the
           remaining units to make up the capacity lost in the unit
           out of service.

 222. 7     Incinerators

           A backup incinerator is not required  (see Paragraph 221. 1

           for requirements for alternate sludge disposal capability).

           Auxiliary incinerator equipment whose failure during

           incinerator operation could result in  damage to the

                               -34-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







          incinerator shall be provided with backups (e. g. , failure




          of a center  shaft cooling fan could result in damage to the




          center shaft of a multi-hearth incinerator). In such cases,




          automatic actuation of the backup auxiliary equipment




          shall be provided.




223.   Component Design Features and Maintenance Requirements




223. 1     Provisions for Isolating Components




          Each component shall have  provisions to enable it to be




          isolated from the flow stream to permit maintenance and




          repair of the component without interruption of the works'




          operation.   Where  practicable,  simple shutoff devices,




          such as stop logs and slide  gates, shall be used.




223. 2     Component Protection




223.2. 1      Protection from Overload




             Components or parts of components subject  to clogging,




             blockage, binding or other overloads shall be protected




             from damage due to the overload.




223.2.2      Protection from Freezing




             Components or parts of components which are wetted




             and subject to freezing shall be designed to ensure that




             components will be operable during winter climatic




             conditions  anticipated  at the works.
                              -35-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria








223.2.3      Protection from Up-Lift Due to Ground Water




             In-ground tanks and basins shall be protected from




             up-lift due to ground water.  If  sufficient ballast is not




             provided in each tank or basin,  other means for  ground




             water relief shall be provided.




223. 3     Slide Gates




          Consideration shall be given to providing mechanical




          operators or other mechanical assistance for slide gates




          which, due to their size or infrequent use, may not be




          easily  removable by manual means alone.




223.4     Aeration Equipment




223.4.1      Component Maintenance




             Mechanical aerators or  air diffusers shall be easily




             removable from the aeration tank to permit  maintenance




             and repair without interrupting operation of  the aeration




             tank or inhibiting operation of the other aeration equip-




             ment.




223.4.2      Filtration of Air




             If air is supplied to fine bubble diffusers, air filters




             shall be provided in numbers, arrangement  and capa-




             cities to furnish at all times an air supply sufficiently




             free from dust to minimize clogging of the diffusers.
                              -36-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







223. 5     Anaerobic Sludge Digester




          At least three access manholes shall be provided in the




          top of the tank.  One opening shall be large enough to




          permit the use of mechanical equipment to remove grit




          and sand. A separate side wall manhole shall also be




          provided.




223.6     Incinerators




          There shall be easy access to the interior of incinerators




          to permit maintenance and repair of internal mechanisms.




          Multi-hearth incinerators shall have a manhole  on each




          hearth level.
                              -37-
-------
                                               System Design Criteria


230.   ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM

       The following criteria shall apply only to those portions of the

       system supplying power to vital components.

   231.    Power Sources

          Two separate and independent sources of electric power shall

          be provided to the works from either two separate utility

          substations or from a single substation and a works based

          generator.  If available from the electric utility, at least one

          of the works' power sources shall be a preferred source

          (i. e. ,  a utility source which is one  of the last to lose power

          from the utility grid due to loss of power generating capacity).

          In geographical areas where it is projected that sometime

          during the design period of the works,  the  electric  utility may

          reduce the rated line voltage (i. e. ,  "brown out") during peak

          utility system load demands,  a works based generator shall

          be provided as an alternate power source,  where practicable.

          Asa minimum, the capacity of the backup  power source for

          each class of treatment works shall be:

          Reliability
          Class  I        Sufficient to operate  all vital components,
                         during peak wastewater flow conditions,
                         together with critical lighting  and ventilation.
                                 -38-
-------
                                             System Design Criteria
       Reliability
       Class II       Same as Reliability Class I,  except that vital
                      components used to support the secondary
                      processes (i.e., mechanical aerators or
                      aeration basin air  compressors) need not be
                      included as long as treatment equivalent to
                      sedimentation and  disinfection is provided.

       Reliability
       Class III       Sufficient to operate the screening  or
                      comminution facilities,  the main wastewater
                      pumps, the primary sedimentation basins,
                      and the disinfection facility during  peak
                      wastewater flow condition, together with
                      critical lighting and ventilation.

       Note:  This requirement concerning rated capacity of electric
       power sources is not intended to prohibit other forms of
       emergency power, such as diesel driven main wastewater
       pumps.

232.   Power Distribution External to the Works
       The independent sources of power shall be distributed to the

       works' transformers in  a way to minimize common mode

       failures from affecting both  sources.

          Example:  The two sets of distribution lines should not  be
          located in the same conduit or supported from the same
          utility  pole.  The two sets of overhead distribution lines,
          if used, should not cross nor be located in an area where
          a single plausible occurrence (e.g. ,  fallen tree) could
          disrupt both lines.  Devices  should be used to protect the
          system from lightning.

233.   Transformers
       Each utility source of power to the works shall be transformed

       to usable voltage with a separate transformer.  The trans-

       formers shall be protected from common mode failure by

       physical separation or other means.

                             -39-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







234.   Power Distribution Within the Works




234. 1     Service to Motor Control Centers




          The internal power distribution system shall be designed




          such that no single fault or loss of a power  source will





          result in disruption (i. e. , extended,  not momentary) of





          electric service to more than one motor control center




          associated with the Reliability Class I, II, or III vital




          components requiring backup power per Paragraph 231,




          above.





234. 2     Division of Loads at Motor Control Centers





          Vital  components of the same type and serving the same





          function shall be  divided as  equally as possible between





          at least two motor  control centers.  Nonvital components




          shall  be divided in  a similar manner,  where practicable.




234. 3     Power Transfer




          Where power feeder or branch circuits can be transferred




          from  one power source to another, a mechanical or




          electrical safety device shall be provided to assure that





          the two power'sources cannot be cross-connected,  if





          unsynchronized.  Automatic  transfer shall be provided in





          those cases when the time delay required to manually





          transfer power could result in a failure to meet effluent





          limitations, a failure to process peak influent flow, or






                             -40-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria


          cause damage to equipment.  Where automatic pump

          control is used, the control panel power source and pump

          power  source shall be similarly transferred.  The

          actuation of an automatic transfer switch shall be alarmed

          and annunciated.

             Example: An example for feeder distribution and bus
             transfer  which meets these criteria is shown in Figure 1.
             The two power sources from utility substations are
             connected to the motor control centers through circuit
             breakers.  A circuit breaker is provided to cross-
             connect the  two motor control centers in the event  one
             of the two normally energized power feeders fail.
             Additional backup capability has been achieved for  the
             main pump by connecting one of the three pumps to the
             motor control center  cross-connect. This assures
             that two out of three pumps  will be  available in the
             event of a panel  fire or panel bus short circuit.

235.   Breaker Settings or Fuse Ratings

       Breaker settings or fuse ratings shall be coordinated to effect

       sequential tripping such that the breaker  or fuse nearest the

       fault will clear the fault prior to activation of other breakers

       or fuses to the  degree practicable.

236.   Equipment Type and Location

       Failures resulting from plausible causes, such as fire or

       flooding,  shall  be minimized by equipment design and location.

       The following requirements apply:
                              -41-
-------
                                              System Design Criteria
                mow
                POWER
                SOURCE
                MO. 1
             I MO TDK CONTROL CENTER
                                    FROM
                                    POWER
                                    SOURCE
                                     NO. 1
                                         TRANSFORMER
                                                  r°n-Yy-T)
                                  Bin
                                Til BREAKER
                                NORMALLY
                                 OPEN
                                          | MOTOR CONTROL CENTER!
                              MOTOR CONTROL
                                 CENTER
                               TIE BB.EAKKR
BLOWER SLUDGE BLOWER
 NO. 1  PUMP  NO. I
       NO. 1
                                         BLOWER  ILUDCE
                                          NO. i   POMP
                                                NO. 1
             MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
                                          | MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
                                  NORMALLY
                                   OPEN
                                  T1
                   MAW    BAR
                   PUMP   KUEN
                   NO. 1    NO. I
                            BAR    MAIN
                           SCREEN  PUMP
                            NO. I   NO. 1
        MOTOR
        CONTROL
  TO
 OTKEB.
 MOTOR
CONTROL
CENTERS
FEEDER DISTRIBUTION AND POWER TRANSFER

                          FIGURE )
                             -42-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







236. 1     Switchgear Location




          Electric switchgear and motor control centers  shall be





          protected from sprays or moisture from liquid processing




          equipment and from breaks in liquid handling piping.




          Where practicable, the electric equipment shall be located





          in a separate room from the liquid processing equipment.




          Liquid handling piping shall not be run through  this room.





          The electric switchgear and motor control centers  shall




          be located above  ground and above the one hundred  (100)





          year flood (or wave action) elevation.





236.2     Conductor Insulation





          Wires  in underground conduits or in conduits that can be





          flooded shall have moisture resistant  insulation as  identified





          in the National Electric  Code.





236. 3     Motor  Protection from  Moisture




          All outdoor motors shall be adequately protected from the





          weather.  Water-proof,  totally enclosed or weather-protected,




          open motor enclosures  shall be used for exposed outdoor




          motors.   Motors located indoors and near liquid handling





          piping  or  equipment shall be,  at least, splash-proof design.




          Consideration shall be given to providing heaters in motors





          located outdoors  or in areas where condensation may
          occur.
                              -43-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







          The following criteria shall apply to motors (and their





          local controls) associated with vital components.  All





          outdoor motors, all large indoor motors (i. e. ,  those not




          readily available as stock items from motor  suppliers),




          and,  where practicable, all other indoor motors shall be





          located at an elevation to preclude flooding from the one




          hundred (100) year flood (or wave actionX or from clogged





          floor drains.  Indoor motors located at  or below the one




          hundred year flood (or wave action) elevation shall be





          housed in a room or building which is protected from




          flooding during the one hundred year flood (or wave action).





          The building  protection shall include measures such as





          no openings (e.g.,  doors,  windows, hatches) to the outside




          below the flood elevation and a drain sump pumped to an





          elevation above the flood elevation.




236.4     Explosion Proof Equipment





          Explosion proof motors, conduit systems,  switches and




          other electrical equipment shall be used in areas where





          flammable liquid, gas or dust is likely to be present.




236. 5     Routing of Cabling




          To avoid a common mode failure,  conductors to components





          which  perform the same function  in parallel  shall not be




          routed in  the same conduit or cable tray.   Conduits housing







                              -44-
-------
                                             System Design Criteria








          such cables shall not be routed in the same underground




          conduit bank unless the conduits are protected from




          common mode failures (such as by encasing the conduit




          bank in a protective layer of concrete).




236.6     Motor  Protection




          Three  phase motors and their  starters shall be  protected




          from electric overload and short circuits on all three




          phases.







          Large  motors shall have  a low  voltage protection device




          which  on the reduction or failure of voltage will cause and




          maintain the interruption of  power to that motor.







          Consideration shall be given to the installation of tempera-




          ture detectors in the  stator and bearings of large motors




          in order to give an indication of overheating problems.




237.   Provisions for Equipment Testing




       Provisions shall be included in the design of equipment




       requiring periodic  testing, to enable the tests to be accom-




       plished while  maintaining electric power to all vital components.




       This requires being able to conduct tests, such as actuating




       and resetting automatic  transfer switches, and starting  and




       loading emergency generating equipment.
                              -45-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria







238.   Maintainability




       The electric distribution system and equipment shall be





       designed to permit inspection and maintenance of individual




       items without causing a controlled diversion or causing





       violation of the effluent limitations.




239.   Emergency Power Generator Starting





       The means  for starting a works based emergency power





       generator shall be completely independent of the normal




       electric power source.  Air starting systems shall have an





       accumulator tank(s) with a volume sufficient to furnish air




       for starting the generator engine a minimum of three (3)





       times without recharging.  Batteries used for  starting  shall





       have a sufficient charge to permit starting the generator




       engine a minimum of three (3) times without recharging.




       The starting system shall be appropriately alarmed and




       instrumented to indicate loss of readiness (e. g. ,  loss of




       charge  on batteries, loss of pressure in air accumulators,




       etc. ).
                               -46-
-------
                                                System Design Criteria







240.   INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL, SYSTEMS




       These criteria cover the requirements for the instrumentation





       and control systems:




   241.   Automatic Control




          Automatic control systems whose failure could result in a




          controlled diversion or a violation of the  effluent limitations





          shall be provided with a manual override.  Those automatic





          controls shall have  alarms and annunciators to indicate





          malfunctions which  require use  of the manual override.  The




          means for detecting the malfunction shall be independent of





          the automatic control system, such  that no single failure




          will result in disabling both the  automatic controls and the





          alarm and annunciator.





   242.   Instrumentation





          Instrumentation whose failure could result in a controlled




          diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations shall be




          provided with an installed backup sensor  and  readout. The





          backup equipment may be of a different type and located at




          a different point,  provided that the same  function is  performed.





          No single failure shall result in disabling both sets of parallel





          instrumentation.
                                  -47-
-------
                                             System Design Criteria
243.   Alarms and Annunciators
       Alarms and annunciators shall be provided to monitor the





       condition of equipment whose failure could result in a





       controlled  diversion or a violation of the effluent limitations.




       Alarms and annunciators shall also be provided to monitor




       conditions which could result in damage to vital equipment





       or hazards to personnel.  The alarms shall sound in areas




       normally manned and also in areas near the  equipment.





       Treatment works not continuously manned shall have the




       alarm signals transmitted to a point (e. g. ,  fire station,




       police station, etc. )  which is continuously manned.   The





       combination of alarms and annunciators shall be such that





       each announced condition is  uniquely identified.  Test circuits





       shall be provided to  enable the alarms and annunciators to




       be tested and verified to be in working order.




244.   Alignment and Calibration of Equipment




       Vital instrumentation and control equipment shall be designed





       to permit alignment  and calibration without requiring a





       controlled diversion  or a violation of the effluent limitations.
                              -48-
-------
                                               System Design Criteria







250.   AUXILIARY SYSTEMS




       The auxiliary  systems include typical systems such as:





       0  Drain system, for





             Components




          -   Systems





             Treatment works






          Compressed air system, for





             Pneumatic controls




             Pneumatic valve operators





          -   Hydropneumatic water systems





          -   Air lift pumps






       0  Service water systems, for




          -   High pressure water





          -   Gland seals





             General service






       0  Fuel supply system, for




          -   Digester heaters





          -   Incinerators




          -   Building heat
                                -49-
-------
                                        System Design Criteria


0  Lubrication oil system, for

      Pumps

   -  Blowers

   -  Motors

0  Chemical supply and addition system, for

   -  Disinfection

      Sludge conditioning

   -  Chemical treatment of wastewater

The reliability requirements of these systems are dependent on

the function of each system in the wastewater treatment works.

If a malfunction of the system can result in  a controlled diversion

or a violation of the effluent limitations, and the required function

cannot be done by any other means, then the system shall have

backup capability in the number  of vital components (i. e.  , pumps,

motors,  mechanical stirrers) required to perform the system

function.  If the system performs functions  which  can be  performed

manually or by some other means,  then backup components shall

not be required.

   Example: A compressed air  system supplying  air to air lift
   pumps, which are pumping return activated sludge from the
   secondary sedimentation basin to the aeration tanks, is an
   example of  an auxiliary system whose failure could degrade
   effluent quality.  If no  other  means for supplying air or pump-
   ing sludge were available, then this  system would be required
   to have backup vital components, such as compressors.
                         -50-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria


       Example:  If the compressed air system only supplied air to
       pneumatic controls which could not affect effluent quality,
       then the system would not require  any backup components.

251.   Backup Components

       Auxiliary systems requiring backup components shall have

       a sufficient number  of each type of component such that the

       design function  of the system can be fulfilled with any one

       component out of commission.  Systems having components

       of different capacities shall meet this criterion with the

       largest capacity component out of  commission.  It is

       permissible for the  backup component to be uninstalled,

       provided that the installed component can be easily removed

       and replaced. However,  at least two components shall be

       installed.

          Example:  A  chemical addition  system supplying chlorinated
          water to the contact chamber and having six chlorinators
          and one water supply pump which just meets capacity
          requirements, would be required by  this criterion to have
          one additional chlorinator  and one additional pump.

252.   Requirements for System, Component and Treatment Works
       Drains and Overflows

       All system, component and works  drains  and overflows shall

       discharge to an  appropriate point in the main wastewater

       treatment process to ensure adequate treatment.   Drains

       flowing to a two-compartment wetwell  shall be designed to

       discharge to either compartment of the  wetwell.
                              -51-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria






252. 1     Works Drains




          The works shall have sufficient drains to enable all spilled




          or leaked raw or partially treated wastewater,  sludge,




          chemicals or any other objectionable substance to freely




          drain out of the area of concern.  Special attention shall




          be given to specifying  sufficient cleanouts in drain lines




          which are likely to clog (e.g. ,  drain lines handling lime).




          All floors within buildings and  structures shall be sloped




          to permit complete draining.




252.2     Sump Pumps




          Sump pumps shall be of a non-clog type.  Sump pumps are




          considered vital components and each sump shall be




          provided with two full  capacity sump pumps.




252. 3     Equipment Overflows




          All equipment located  within buildings and which can




          overflow shall be equipped with an adequately  sized




          overflow pipe.  The overflow shall be directed to a gravity




          drain.




252.4     Surface Water Drains




          The  works' grounds shall be graded and drains provided




          in order to prohibit surface water from  draining into




          pump wells,  tanks, basins, beds, or buildings.  Drains
                             -52-
-------
                                            System Design Criteria






          which handle uncontaminated water  only shall not be




          connected to the contaminated drain system.




252.5     Component Dewatering




          All pump wells, tanks, basins and beds,  with the exception




          of aeration tanks,  shall be designed to enable complete




          dewatering in a reasonable length of time in order to




          minimize the component downtime for maintenance or




          repairs.  Where practicable,  these components  shall have




          sloped bottoms to  enable the units to be completely drained.




252.6     Drain Backflow




          Drains shall be designed to prevent backflow from other




          sources which would cause  flooding or violation of the




          effluent limitations.  The drain system shall be  designed




          to prevent the entrance of storm water during  the one




          hundred year flood (or wave action) condition.




253.   Continuity of Operation




       The  failure of a mechanical component in an auxiliary system




       shall not result in disrupting the operating continuity of the




       wastewater treatment system or sludge handling and disposal




       system to the extent that flooding,  failure, malfunctioning




       or damage to components in those  systems results.
                             -53-
-------
                                             System Design Criteria


          Example:  A seal water system with normal and backup
          water supplies must transfer automatically to the backup
          upon failure of the normal supply in order to protect the
          equipment which needs the seal water to prevent damage.

254.   Emergency Fuel Storage

       If a vital component requires fuel for operation,  then the

       fuel supply system design shall include provisions for fuel

       storage or a standby fuel source.  The capacity of stored

       gaseous or liquid fuel shall be determined by the Grant

       Applicant based on the  plausible downtime of the normal fuel

       supply and the expected consumption rate.  The emergency

       system shall be physically separate from the normal fuel

       supply up to its connection to the fuel distribution system

       within the  works.

255.   Disinfectant Addition  System

       The capacity of the disinfectant addition system shall be

       designed with due consideration of abnormal operating

       conditions, such as having a disinfectant  contact basin out

       of service.  It is  permissible for the additional capacity

       required for abnormal conditions to be separate and

       independent from the normal disinfectant addition system.
U.S. GWEMMOT nwmWOfFICE 1975- 628-931/290
                              -54-
-------
                                           EPA 430/9-74-011

TECHNICAL BULLETIN	
  SUPPLEMENT TO FEDERAL GUIDELINES: DESIGN,  OPERATION,
  AND MAINTENANCE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
                      PONDS
                        MARCH 1974
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Water Program Operations
                   Washington, D.C.  20460
-------
               SUPPLEMENT TO FEDERAL GUIDELINES:   DESIGN
                     OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
                    WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

                 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                          TECHNICAL BULLETIN

                      WASTEWATER TREATMENT PONDS
     The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
establish an extensive program to upgrade the quality of our Nation's
waters.  For municipal wastewater treatment, the Act requires that
the Environmental Protection Agency define the effluent quality that
can be achieved by secondary treatment.   Municipal permits and grants
are then based on the secondary treatment definition.  More stringent
effluent requirements may be necessary 1n order to meet requirements
such as water quality standards.

     Publication of the definition of secondary treatment (40 CFR Part
133) has focused attention on the limitations of some processes which,
1n the past, were defined as "secondary treatment".  In particular,
there have been reports that many ponds (or lagoons), as they are presently
designed and operated, may not meet the secondary treatment require-
ments.  In those cases, the ponds will have to be either upgraded or
replaced.  It 1s Important to note, however, that EPA has not forbidden
the use of pond systems which achieve the required performance limits.

     EPA recognizes the advantages of simplicity and low cost which
ponds offer to smaller communities.  This Technical Bulletin concentrates
on upgrading methods which retain these features.  In some cases, however,
It may be more cost-effective to use another treatment method.  Guidance
on design and operation of pond systems which have met the secondary
treatment performance requirements 1s presented.  Most States have
comprehensive design requirements based on local experiences and there
are many other valuable design references; therefore, the Technical
Bulletin 1s not Intended to be a comprehensive design manual.  References
are provided for additional engineering Information.

     The Bulletin will be revised from time to time as additional research
and evaluation becomes available.  All users are encouraged to submit
suggested revisions and Information to the Director, Municipal Construc-
tion Division (AW-447), Office of Water Program Operations, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.  20460.
'   v< I    V
                                    '   v<

                                  Roger Strelow
                              Acting Assistant Administrator
                             for A1r and Water Programs
-------
          SUPPLEMENT TO FEDERAL GUIDELINES:   DESIGN
                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
               WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                   TECHNICAL BULLETIN

               WASTEWATER TREATMENT PONDS
1.  PURPOSE:

    This Bulletin presents technical  information which will  be used by
Environmental Protection Agency Regional  Administrators to review grant
applications involving wastewater treatment ponds.

2.  RELATED PUBLICATIONS:

    This Bulletin supplements the Federal Guidelines:  Design, Operation,
and Maintenance of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.  Additional
process design information is contained in EPA Technology Transfer publi-
cations entitled "Upgrading Lagoons"  (1)  and "Upgrading Existing Lagoons"
(2), and therefore is not repeated in this Bulletin.

3.  TERMINOLOGY:

    A wastewater treatment pond is a  large, relatively shallow basin
designed for long term detention of wastewater which  may or may not
have received prior treatment.  While in the basin  the wastewater is
biologically treated to reduce biochemical oxygen demand and suspended
solids.  There are many different types of lagoons  and ponds; however,
the following terminology is used for the wastewater  treatment ponds
discussed in this Bulletin

    a.  Photosynthetic pond - A pond  which is designed to rely on
photosynthetic oxygenation (i.e. oxygen from algae) for any  portion of
the oxygen needed for waste treatment.  This includes oxidation ponds
and facultative lagoons.  These ponds may have supplemental  aeration
by mechanical means.  With regard to  hydraulic flow,  photosynthetic
ponds are either of the (1) flow-through type, in which the pond
discharges relatively continuously throughout the year; or,  (2) con-
trol led-discharge type, in which the  pond is designed to retain the
-------
wastewater without discharge from six months to one year,  followed
by controlled discharge over a short time interval  (typically about
one to three weeks).

    b.  Aerated pond  - A pond which is not designed to rely on any
photosynthetic oxygenation to provide oxygen needed for biological
waste treatment.  Air is supplied by mechanical means.  Aerated
ponds are either (1)  complete mix, in which sufficient energy is
imparted to the wastewater to prevent deposition of solids in the
pond, or, (2) partial-mix, in which only sufficient energy is used
to dissolve and mix oxygen in the wastewater.  Solid materials
settle in the partial-mix pond and are decomposed anaerobically.
There will be algae in the partial-mix aerated pond, but usually
far fewer than in a photosynthetic pond.

    c.  Complete retention pond - This type of pond relies on evapora-
tion and percolation exceeding inflow so that there is no discharge of
pollutants.  This method is acceptable at some locations with suitable
climatic conditions and where consistent with water rights.  Special
attention must be given to protecting ground water and preventing odors.

4.  USE OF THE CRITERIA:

    Projects involving waste treatment ponds proposed for Federal
financial assistance from EPA will be based on the criteria contained
in this Technical Bulletin.  Approval can be given to different designs
if reasonable assurance can be given to the EPA Regional Administrator
that satisfactory performance will be achieved.

    There is a wide variation in the types of ponds and the wastewaters
treated by such ponds, as well as the performance of ponds in different
geographical locations.  The criteria in this Technical Bulletin are
intended to provide a conservative baseline of engineering practice, and
must be applied with engineering judgement on a case-by-case basis.
The EPA Regional Administrator will review each project to identify
and resolve additional factors important to the design of a specific
project.  Responsibility for satisfactory performance, however, remains
with the grant applicant.  Additional construction may be necessary if
completed facilities are not in compliance with effluent limitations.

    It is the policy of EPA to encourage the use of new technology.
EPA Regional Administrators will continue to give full consideration
to new methods which may not be included in this bulletin.
-------
5.  PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS:

    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the
Act) established the minimum performance requirements for publicly
owned treatment works.  In accordance with Section 301(b)(l)(B) of the
Act, publicly owned treatment works must meet at least effluent limita-
tions based on secondary treatment as defined by the EPA Administrator.
EPA has published information on secondary treatment in 40 CFR Part
133(3).  The criteria in this Technical Bulletin are intended to
result in wastewater treatment ponds which can achieve effluent limi-
tations based on the secondary treatment information.  More stringent
performance requirements may be necessary to meet other requirements
such as water quality standards.  In such cases the criteria contained
in this Bulletin will have to be adjusted accordingly.

6.  BACKGROUND:

    There are more than 4,000 publicly owned ponds in the United States.
Generally these ponds are located in small communities and are designed
for flows less than 1 MGD.  Ponds have been used because operation is
simple, operating costs are low, and land is available.  The great
majority of the existing ponds are the photosynthetic flow-through type.

    There is a wide variation in the design of these systems.  Organic
loadings per acre (both in design practice and actual operation) have
increased with time.  Comprehensive performance data on these ponds is
generally lacking, particularly for the flow-through, photosynthetic
type.  At the typical facility there has been no test program orj at
the most, infrequent grab sampling.

    Regarding the ability of flow-through photosynthetic ponds to
meet secondary treatment requirements, the limited data indicates that:

    a.  The BOD level -is borderline, but probably could be achieved by
conservative design.  The BOD level would not be met if the pond continued
to discharge while there is prolonged ice cover over the pond.

    b.  The suspended solids level is generally not achieved because
of the algae in the effluent.

    c.  Fecal coliform levels are not achieved without a positive
means of disinfection suchas chlorination.
-------
    d.  The pH of the effluent varies markedly depending  on  alkalinity/C02
relationships.  The variation is,  however,  rarely  sufficient to  require
pH adjustment (4).

    Despite these generalizations, it is important to note that  there
are reports of flow-through ponds  which do  achieve secondary treatment
performance.  Satisfactory performance appears to  be attributable to
either favorable year-round climate as in the Southwestern United States
or conservative design (up to 6 cells).

    Controlled discharge ponds have been used in the North,  where, if
properly operated, they can meet the BOD level. They are borderline on
the suspended solids, but probably could meet the  level with careful
operation.  Such ponds may not require positive disinfection to  meet
the fecal coliform levels.

    Aerated ponds with suspended solids separation and disinfection,
if properly designed, can meet the BOD requirements, but  partial-mix
units are borderline on suspended  solids.  Granular media filtration
may be needed to assure satisfactory year round performance.

7.  FLOW-THROUGH PHOTOSYNTHETIC PONDS:

    Regional Administrators will make grants for this type of pond
without supplemental treatment only when there is  reasonable assurance
that the pond will perform satisfactorily.

    The determination could be based on satisfactory performance of a
similar pond in a comparable environment or on pilot plant performance
with conservative scale-up factors,  Data from at  least one year's
operation should be sufficient to show satisfactory performance.  Data
from shorter periods may not adequately reflect seasonal  variations in
performance.

    When Regional Administrators make such grants, the Facilities Plan
should include a discussion of actions to be taken if upgrading is
determined to be necessary after the plant is placed in operation.

8.  CONTROLLED DISCHARGE PONDS:

    The controlled discharge pond is designed to receive and retain
wastewaters for six   months to one year.  At the  end of this long-term
detention, the contents of the pond are discharged during an interval
of one to three weeks.  Since experience with this type of pond is
presently limited to Northern States with definite climatic seasons,
it may be necessary to run pilot studies in States with only slight
seasonal  climate  chanqes.
-------
    Ponds of this type have operated satisfactorily in Michigan using
the following design criteria:

            Overall organic loading:  20-25 pounds

            Liquid depth:  not more than 6 feet for the first
            cell.  Not more than 8 feet for subsequent cells.

            Hydraulic detention:  At least 6 months above the
            2 foot liquid level (including precipitation), but
            not less than the period of ice cover.

            Number of cells:  At least 3 for reliability, with
            piping flexibility for parallel or series operation.

    The design of the controlled discharge pond must include an anlysis
showing that receiving stream water quality standards will be maintained
during discharge intervals, and that the receiving watercourses can
accomodate the discharge rate from the pond.

    Selecting the optimum day and hour for release of the pond contents
is critical to the success of this method.  The operation and maintenance
manual must include instructions on how to correlate pond discharge  with
effluent and stream quality.  The pond contents and stream must be care-
fully examined, before and during the release of the pond contents.   A
Statewide program of controlled releases (keyed to tests of 8005,  dis-
solve oxygen, and suspended solids, fecal  coliform as well as sunlight,
weather, and streamflow) has been effective.

    In the Michigan program, discharge of effluents follows a consistent
pattern for all ponds.  The following steps are usually taken:

    a.  Isolate the cell to be discharged, usually the final one in  the
series, by valving-off the inlet line from the preceding cell.

    b.  Arrange to analyze samples for BOD, suspended solids, volatile
suspended solids, pH, and other parameters which may be required for a
particular location.

    c.  Plan work so as to spend full time on control of the discharge
throughout the period.

    d.  Sample contents of the cell to be discharged for dissolve  oxygen,
noting turbidity, color and any unusual conditions.
-------
     e.   Note conditions  in  the  stream  to  receive the effluent.

     f.   Notify the State regulatory  agency of  results of these observa-
 tions and plans for discharge and  obtain  approval.

     g.   If discharge is  approved,  commence discharge and continue so
 long as weather is favorable, dissolved oxygen is near  or  above satura-
 tion values and turbidity is not excessive following the prearranged
 discharge flow pattern among the cells.   Usually this consists of
 drawing down the last two cells in the series  (if there are three or
 more) to about 18-24 inches after  isolation; interrupting  the discharge
 for a week or more to divert raw waste to a cell which  has been drawn
 down and resting the initial cell  before  its discharge.  When this
 first cell is drawn down to about  24 inches depth,  the  usual series
 flow pattern, without discharge, is  resumed.   During discharge to the
 receiving waters samples are taken at  least three times each day near
 the discharge pipe for immediate dissolved oxygen analysis.  Additional
 testing may be required for suspended  solids.

 9.   COMPLETE-MIX AERATED PONDS:

     This type of pond can be sesigned  to  meet  secondary treatment
 requirements on a similar basis as an  activated sludge  process, with
 or without solids return (5).   The criteria in this Bulletin are not
 applicable to a complete-mix aerated pond.

10.   PARTIAL-MIX AERATED  PONDS:

     The process design can  be based  on reactor mixing,  flow regime,
 biological kinetics, and oxygen transfer  rates. As defined in this
 Bulletin, the partial-mix aerated  pond will not include any allowance
 for photosynthetic oxygenation.

     At least three cells will be provided with aeration in each  cell
 (except designated clarifier cells)  so that dissolved oxygen  is  present
 throughout the surface layer.   It  is usually beneficial to recirculate
 effluent high in dissolved  oxygen  to the  pond  influent. The  aeration
 should be tapered so that the  final  portion of the  final cell  is a
 quiescent zone and can function as a clarifier, or  a separate  clarifier
 can be provided.

     The pond volume will be sized  on the  basis of low temperature
 reaction rates, with allowance  for sedimentation.   Aeration equip-
 ment will be sized for the warm weather  oxygen uptake  rate and for
 mixing in the pond.  Oxygen transfer will include consideration  of
 pond depth, which, for a new  pond, typically  is 8 feet  or  greater.
-------
     In cold climates, surface aerators  will  be  designed  to  ensure
 satisfactory operation during freezing  weather, including splash  guards,
 heated housings, and design to keep floating ice away from  the  aerator.

     See EPA Technical Bulletin 430-99-74-001 (6) for aeration unit
 reliability criteria.

     Partial-mix ponds may have high suspended solids on  an  infrequent
 basis due to algae.   To ensure satisfactory  performance, capability
 should be provided for algae removal.   Because  of the relatively  low
 amounts of algae a granular dual  media  filter,  along with capability
 for feeding a polymer filter aid, should be  satisfactory.

11.  GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

     The following criteria apply  to the waste treatment  ponds covered
 in this Bulletin:

     a.  Positive Disinfection

     In the past, pond designs have relied on natural die-off of pathogens.
 Performance data shows that this  method is not  sufficiently reliable
 for a flow-through photosynthetic pond  to achieve secondary treatment
 fecal coliform levels except with recommended loadings and  very well
 managed controlled discharge systems.   A positive means  of  disinfection
 must be provided except where data from a similar pond in a comparable
 environment shows satisfactory performance.   In that case the grant
 applicant must agree to install positive disinfection if performance
 is not achieved following construction.

     Chlorination can achieve the  required fecal coliform kills; however,
 if algae are not removed, excessive chlorination can result in  algae
 die-off and increased BOD due to  algae  cell  decay.  Echelberger,  et al.  (7)
 studied-the clorination of algae  laden  waters and concluded that
 apparent algae cell  lysing following chlorination to a desirable  residual
 level significantly increases the soluble organic concentration in the
 water.  They also concluded that  if chlorine is used as  the disinfectant,
 serious consideration should be given  to effective algae removal  prior
 to disinfection.  Horn (8) presents a laboratory method to optimize the
 the chlorine residual and reaction time when chlorinating algae laden
 waters.  These considerations would be  important where the  effluent
 BOD is close to the permitted value and BOD  increase due to algae die-
 off would result in a permit violation.

     The chlorine should be applied to  the pond  effluent  at  a concentra-
 tion and contact time sufficient to achieve  effluent limitations. The
 optimum chlorine residual will be determined when the system is opera-
 tional.  A contact time of 20 minutes  at peak hourly flow is recommended.
-------
    b.  Prevention of Short Circuiting

    Multi-cell  ponds, operated in  series,  perform  substantially better
than single-cell  or two-cell  ponds.   Additional  cells  reduce  short
circuiting of untreated wastewaters  through  the  pond.   No  less than
three cells will  be provided with  the initial  cell  sized to avoid
anaerobic conditions (see the information  beginning on Page 54 of
Reference 4).

    The Missouri  Basin Engineering Health  Council  (4), makes  the fol-
lowing recommendations for photosynthetic  ponds  (there are, however,
no performance  reports on ponds using this system):

        "The first pond should be  designed with  a  4 ft. normal depth
         to give  maximum surface area for  photosynthesis.  The inlet
         should be designed to give  a circular,  deeper, sludge storage
         zone below the bottom of  the normal  pond.   This will allow
         maximum  wind mixing to occur without stirring up  the settled
         solids.   The sludge storage section should have a maximum
         diameter of 100-200 ft.  with a center  depth  of 4 to 6 ft.
         The raw  waste inlet pipe  should be  located in the center
         of the sludge storage section so  that the raw wastes enter
         the pond in a radial fashion to distribute the load  around
         the inlet pipe in the same  fashion  that inlet structures are
         designed for circular clarifiers  except that  all  of  the
         baffles  in the oxidation  pond should be submerged.   This will
         permit the heavy solids to  remain around  the  inlet and under-
         go anaerobic decomposition  with a minimum oxygen  demand.  The
         outlet from the first cell  should have  the capacity  to change
         the depth from 3 to 5 ft  in 6 inch  increments to  give opera-
         tional flexibility as well  as a drain for the entire pond.
         The outlet structure should be designed to minimize  fluid
         velocities at a single point.  In small plants a  large pipe
         outlet with adjustable sections is  adequate.   In  large plants
         an adjustable weir will be  required. There should be three
         sets of  baffles concentrically around the effluent structure.
         The first baffle should be  designed to  extend around the out-
         let structure 3-5 ft. with  the baffle extending  at least 6
         inches to onefoot above the highest water level  and  down  to
         within one  foot of  the bottom of the pond.  Thus, the  effluent
         will be  drawn from  the bottom of the pond.  The  second
         concentric  baffle rises from the bottom of the pond  to
         within 6  inches of  the surface at the lowest possible  level.
         The third  concentric  baffle is the same as the first,
                             8
-------
          rising above the maximum surface and dropping to within  one
          foot of the bottom of the pond.   These  baffles are  designed
          to give an up and over type baffle with a bottom drawoff to
          minimize removal of algae from the active zone and  to  allow
          the algae to congregate at the surface  within a quiescent
          ring that is not affected by wind action.  In effect,  a
          stilling basin is created which  encourages the algae to  ac-
          cumulate at the light surface and minimizes mixing  to  inter-
          fere with sedimentation."

     c.  Protection of Ground Water From Pond Seepage

     Ponds containing wastewater, if allowed to drain freely  to  aquifers
 or bedrock crevices, could cause significant ground water pollution.
 To prevent ground water degradation, ponds must  be designed  to  minimize
 seepage losses and will either:  (1) have sufficient distance through
 low permeability soil to ground water to  ensure  protection of the aquifers,
 or (2) have all submerged surfaces of the pond sealed BO as  to  ensure
 protection of the ground water.

     In borderlines cases the Regional  Administrator may require percola-
 tion tests or observation wells and a monitoring plan.

12.  SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT FOR FLOW-THROUGH PHOTOSYNTHETIC PONDS:

     Methods of providing supplemental  treatment  for flow-through  ponds
 are being researched.  Methods included in this  Bulletin are those which
 are reported to have been successful at pilot or plant scale.   EPA is
 aware that other concepts have been proposed and some of these  are being
 tested.  The Bulletin will be revised from time  to time as information
 on other successful methods becomes available.

     Most techniques for upgrading flow-through ponds involve algae
 removal.  Two comprehensive discussions of algae removal techniques
 have been prepared (9, 10).  In this Bulletin, as in the EPA research
 program, priority has been given to those methods which retain  the
 operational simplicity features of flow-through  ponds.

     Supplemental treatment must be designed for  the conditions  at a
 specific site.  Pilot testing may be required, particularly  if  there
 are significant quantities of industrial  waste and depending on the
 size of the facility.
-------
13.  SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT METHODS:

     a.   Conversion to Controlled  Discharge.

     An  existing flow-through  pond can  be  converted to  a  controlled
 discharge pond if the previously  outlined conditions are met.  Usually
 additional  land area will  be  required  to  obtain  the volume  required
 for controlled detention.

     b.   Intermittent Sand  Filtration.

     Intermittant sand filters were used in the past for  flows up to
 about 0.25 MGD, but the high  cost of labor to clean the  filter sand
 reduced this useage.  Application of pond effluents to intermittant
 sand filters has been successful  on a  pilot scale.  Information to date
 is limited (11) and designs should be  conservative.  The upper limit
 of hydraulic loading for pond effluents should be 0.4  MGD/acre until
 more information is obtained.  Design  information is contained in
 Chapter 12 of Reference 12.  When freezing could occur on the filter
 surface, the pond should be sized to retain the  wastewater  during
 freezing weather conditions or  there should be an alternative operational
 plan to ensure effluent limitations are met

     In  their laboratory and prototype  field studies of intermittant
 sand filtration of pond effluents, Marshall  and  Middlebrooks  (11)  found:

               (1)  Viable  algae cells  passed the entire  depth
                    of all  the filter sands studied.

               (2)  Hydraulic  loading rate did not affect the
                    algae or suspended  solids removal efficiency
                    at the  0.1,0.2, or  0.3 MGD/acre employed in
                    the laboratory study.   The effects  of hydraulic
                    loading rate on suspended solids removals  in
                    the field  studies were inconclusive because
                    of the  large quantities of fines washed  from
                    the filters, but volatile suspended solids
                    removal did  indicate a reduction in removal
                    efficiency as  the hydraulic loading rate was
                    increased.

               C3)  Smaller effective size sands  produced better  algae
                    or suspended and volatile suspended solids  removals.
                    Sand  size was not  a significant factor  in  algae
                    removal at applied  algae concentrations  of 15  and
                             10
-------
                   30 mg/1, but was significant when the con-
                   centration was increased to 45-50  mg/1  In
                   both the laboratory and field filters.  At
                   the 0.5 MGD/acre hydraulic loading rate,
                   monthly mean volatile suspended solids were
                   essentially equal for the 0.17 and 0.72 mm
                   effective size sands.   Efficiences  fluctuated
                   considerably  from one  sand  to  the  other during
                   the  study period.   But in general  the  0,17mm
                   effective size sand produced a  better  quality
                   effluent.

    c.  Land Treatment of Pond Effluents.

    This method of using pond effluents as a water resource has  particu-
lar application in water short areas where land is readily available.
Application rates vary widely depending on method of application,  crops
involved, and climate.   Seasonal application is usually related  to crop
growth and additional pond capacity may be required for storage  during
the dormant season.  Comprehensive information on land treatment systems
is available (13, 14), including many examples where the wastewater has
been stored in a pond before land application.  Additional design  in-
formation will be contained in EPA Evaluation Procedures for Land
Application Systems (now in preparation).  Technical  assistance  on
complex projects is available through EPA Regional Offices, the  Office
of Water Program Operations, and the Robert S. Kerr Water Research
Center, Ada, Oklahoma.

    d.  Addition of Supplemental Aeration.

    A flow-through photosynthetic pond can be upgraded by the installa-
tion of diffused or mechanical aerators.  For optimum efficiency in
oxygen transfer and mixing the pond should be deepened  about 5  feet
(to about 10 feet liquid depth).  Also, additional electrical power
will be required to operate the aeration system.

    e.  Chemical Coagulation.

    Coagulation followed by sedimentation, and possibly filtration
has been used extensively for the removal of suspended and colloidal
material from water.  In the case of the chemical treatment of waste-
water treatment pond effluents the data are not comprehensive (10).
Lime, alum, and ferric salts are the most commonly used coagulating
agents.  Because of the many variables a pilot testing program will
usually be necessary to ensure proper operation of the system.  There
must be a satisfactory method of ultimate disposition of resultant
sludges.
                               11
-------
      Unless designed for constant  flow,  close  control  of  the  process
 is required to obtain satisfactory performance.   Depending  on the
 alkalinity of the wastewater,  the  operating  cost  of  the chemicals
 for this method can be relatively  high.   Additional  information  is
 contained in References 1,  2,  9, and 10.

14.  ADDITIONAL FIELD EXPERIENCE:

      The information contained in  this  Bulletin will  be modified
 as additional field experience becomes  available.  Those  having  such
 information are encouraged  to  submit it to the Director,  Municipal
 Construction Division (AW-447), Office  of Water Program Operations,
 U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, Washington,  D.C.  20460.
                              12
-------
 Bibliography

 1.   Upgrading Lagoons,  by D.  H.  Caldwell,  D.  S.  Parker,  and  W.  R.  Uhte.
     Prepared for the EPA Technology Transfer  Program.  August  1973.

 2.   Upgrading Existing  Lagoons,  by R.  F. Lewis and  J.  M.  Smith.   Prepared
     for the EPA Technology Transfer Program.   October  1973.

 3.   Secondary Treatment Information, 40 CFR Part 133,  Federal  Register
     Volume 38, No.  159, 22298-22299.  August  17, 1973.

 4.   Waste Treatment Lagoons - State of the Art,by Missouri Basin
     Engineering Health  Council.  EPA Research  Report 17090 EHX  07/71.
     July, 1971.

 5.   Wastewater Engineering, by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  McGraw-Hill
     Book Company.  1972.

 6.   Technical Bulletin:  Design  Criteria for  Mechanical,  Electric, and
     Fluid System and Component Reliability, Office  of  Water  Program
     Operations.  EPA Publication 430-99-74-001.   1973.

 7.   Echelberger, W. F., J.  L. Pavoni,  P. C. Singer, and  M. W.  Tenney,
     "Disinfection of Algae Laden Waters",  Journal of the Sanitary
     Engineering Division, ASCE,  Vol. 97, No.  SA 5.   October  1971.

 8.   Horn, L., "Chlorination of Waste Pond Effluent", 2nd  International
     Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, edited by Ross E. McKinney
     for Missouri Basin  Engineering Health  Council.   1970.

 9.   Removal of Algae from Waste  Stabilization Pond  Effluents -  A  State
     of the Art, by V. Kothandaraman and R. L. Evans. Illinois  State
     Water Survey Circular 108, Urbana, Illinois. 1972.

10.   Evaluation of Techniques  for Algae Removal from Wastewater  Stabiliza-
     tion Ponds by E. J. Middlebrooks,  D. B. Porcella,  R.  A Gearheart,
     G. R. Marshall, J.  H. Reynolds, and W. J. Grenny.  Utah  Water Research
     Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. January 1974.

11.   Intermittant Sand Filtration to Upgrade Existing Wastewater Treat-
     ment Facilities, by G.  R. Marshall and E. J. Middlebrooks.   Utah
     Water Research Laboratory, Utah State  University,  Logan, Utah.
     February, 1974.
                                 13
-------
  12.  Sewage Treatment Plant Design,  ASCE Manual  of Engineering Practice
       No.  36/WPCF Manual  of Practice  No.  8.   1959.

  13.  Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of Wastewater,  by
       R.  H.  Sullivan,  M.  M.  Cohn, and S.  S.  Baxter, Prepared  for Office
       of Water Program Operations.  EPA Publication 430-9-73-006.   July  1973,

  14.  Wastewater Treatment and Reuse  by Land Application,  by  C. E.  Pound
       and R. W. Crites. EPA Research  Report  660/2-73-006a.  August, 1973.


Note:  Information on EPA publications can be obtained from the EPA
       Regional Administrator.
                                     14
-------
                                   EPA-430/9-75-001
TECHNICAL BULLETIN
    EVALUATION  OF  LAND
  APPLICATION  SYSTEMS
                MARCH 1975
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Water Program Operations
              Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
                      NOTE
Methods for estimating costs and evaluating the cost
effectiveness of land-application systems are being
developed in a separate report that will be available
in early 1975.
-------
                                       EPA-430/9-75-001
 TECHNICAL BULLETIN
            EVALUATION  OF LAND
EVALUATION  CHECKLIST AND  SUPPORTING COMMENTARY
                               \
                  MARCH 197S
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             Office of Water Program Operations
                  Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
                               ABSTRACT
Procedures are set forth to assist EPA personnel in evaluating treatment
systems that employ land application of municipal wastewater.  In addition,
information and assistance is provided which may be of value to other federal,
state, and local agencies, the wastewater industry, consultants and designers.
However,  it is not intended that the bulletin be used as a comprehensive
design manual.

The bulletin consists of an Evaluation Checklist and parallel background
information and is divided into three major parts dealing with;  (1) facilities
plans,  (2) design plans and specifications,  and  (3) operation and maintenance
manuals.

The focus of Part I is on the thorough evaluation of land-application alterna-
tives and the preparation of a detailed facilities plan.  A number of interrelated
considerations are addressed, including:  evaluation of potential sites,
evaluation of land-application alternatives, design considerations, and
environmental factors.

Procedures for evaluating design plans  and specifications are described in
Part II, with emphasis being placed on agreement with the facilities plans
and the  requirement for basing the  review  of the design on conditions present
at the particular site.  Sample design criteria listings are included in the
appendix.

In Part  III, extensive reference is made to the  EPA publication Considerations
for Preparation of Operation and  Maintenance Manuals.  Special considerations
for land-application systems are  presented with respect to operating procedures,
monitoring requirements, and impact control.

This report is submitted in partial  fulfillment of Contract 68-01-0966 by
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Western Regional Office, under the sponsorship of the
Environmental  Protection Agency.  Work was completed as of September 1974.
                                    ii
-------
TECHNICAL BULLETIN                                            EPA-430/9-75-001

                                        FOREWORD
 This technical bulletin is published pursuant to certain sections of the Federal Water Pollution
 Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500,  enacted on October 18,  1972.  The 1972
 Amendments require the publication of information that will encourage waste treatment manage-
 ment which results in facilities for (1) the recycling of potential sewage pollutants through the
 production of agricultural, silvicultural, or aquacultural products; (2) the reclamation of waste-
 water; and (3) the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.  The Amendments also require the
 consideration of alternative waste management techniques that provide the best practicable
 waste treatment technology over the life of the treatment works.

 The three principal waste management alternatives are (1) conventional treatment and discharge,
 (2) conventional treatment and direct reuse, and (3) land treatment with discharges to surface
 and/or groundwaters. Treatment by land application of wastcwater is a viable \\aste manage-
 ment alternative and  is practiced successfully and extensively both in the United States and
 throughout the world.  This publication is concerned solely with land application for wastewater
 treatment and  is intended to encourage its use where it is  cost-effective.

 This bulletin is not a comprehensive design manual; primarily, it provides information and
 program  guidance to  EPA Regional Offices for analyzing and evaluating municipal applications
 for federal grants for the construction of publicly owned treatment works using land-application
 methods.  It also provides information and assistance to other federal agencies, to interstate
 organizations, to state water pollution control agencies, to the wastewater industry,  and to
 consultants and designers of land-application systems.

 Admittedly, there is  insufficient knowledge about certain aspects of the treatment of sewage
 effluents  by conventional secondary treatment as well  as by land treatment to evaluate adequately
 all of the ramifications of the potential health hazards by any  method of treating wastewater.
 EPA is proceeding with  all deliberate  speed, with its own  resources  and jointly with other insti-
 tutions and agencies, to research these areas of insufficient knowledge.  However, the success-
 ful and extensive use of  the land treatment technique over  a long period of time throughout the
 world justifies serious consideration of this method of treatment, even though, for example,  it
 is not possible at this time to specify acceptable levels of  contaminants in the  soil from land
 application of wastewater. It must be demonstrated, however, that land treatment is the most
 cost-effective alternative, is consistent with the environmental assessment, and in other
 respects  satisfies applicable tests.

 As new aspects of land-application technology are developed through experience,  additional
 information will become available, and this publication will be revised.  All users are  encour-
 aged to submit suggested revisions and pertinent information  to the Director,  Municipal Con-
 struction Division, Office of Water Program Operations, U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, Washington, D.C.  20460.
                                                              James L.  Agee
                                                       Assistant Administrator for
                                                      Water and Hazardous Materials
                                             111
-------
                   STATUTORY AND SUB-STATUTORY BASIS


The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500), the legislative history of the Act, and the regulations which have
been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act, provide the statu-
tory basis for consideration and funding of land-application systems in the
treatment of municipal wastewater.

LEGISLATION

The rationale and goals within which land-application systems are to be
considered are contained in the following sections of the Act:

        Section  208 - Areawide Waste Treatment Management
        Section  201 - Facilities Planning
        Section  304 - Best Practicable Treatment Technology (BPT)
        Section  212 - Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Concerning land application of municipal wastewater, the portions of these
sections that are most important are reproduced here:
Section 208
               "SEC. 208. (a) For the purpose of encouraging and facilitating the
              development and implementation of areawide waste treatment man-
              agement plans—
                   "(1) The Administrator,  	
                 	after consultation with appropriate
                 Federal, State, and local authorities, shall by regulation publish
                 guidelines for the identification of those areas which, as a result
                 of urban-industrial concentrations or other factors, have sub-
                 stantial water quality control problems.
                  •'(b) (1) Xot later than one year after the date of designation of any
                 organization under subsection  (a) of this section such organization
                 shall have in operation a continuing areawide waste treatment man-
                 agement planning process consistent with section 201 of this Act. Plans
                 prepared in accordance with this process shall contain alternatives for
                 waste treatment management,  and be applicable to all wastes gen-
                 erated  within the area involved. The initial plan prepared in accord-
                 ance with such process shall be certified by the Governor and submitted
                 to the Administrator not later than two years after the planning proc-
                 p^s  is in  operation.
                  •'(2) Any plan prepared under such process shall include, but not be
                 limited to—
                      "(A) the identification of treatment works necessary to meet
                    the anticipated municipal and industrial  waste treatment needs of
                    the area over a twenty-year period, annually updated (including
                    an analysis of alternative waste treatment systems), including
                    any requirements for the acquisition of  land for treatment nur-
                    poses; the necessary waste water collection and urban storm water
                    runoff systems; and a program to provide the necessary financial
                    arrangements for the development of such treatment works;
                                           IV
-------
                 "(B) the establishment of construction priorities for sxich treat-
                ment works and time schedules for the initiation and completion
                of all treatment works:
                 "(C) the establishment of a regulatory program to—
                      "(i) implement the waste treatment management require-
                   ments of section 201 (c),
                      "(ii) regulate the location, modification, and construction
                   of any facilities within such area which may result in any
                   discharge in such area, and
                      "(i»)  assure that any industrial or commercial wastes dis-
                   charged into any treatment works in such area meet applicable
                   pretreatnient requirements;
                 "(D) the identification of those agencies necessary to construct,
                operate, and maintain all facilities required by  the plan and
                otherwise to carry  out the plan;
                 "(E) the identification of the measures necessary to carry out
                the plan (including financing), the period of time necessary to
                carry out the plan, the costs of carrying out the plan within such
                time, and  the economic, social,  and environmental  impact of
                carrying out the plan within such time;
                 "(F) a process to  (i) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally
                and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution, includ-
                ing runoff from manure disposal areas, and from land used for
                livestock and crop production, and (ii)  set forth procedures
                and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the
                e.xtent feasible such sources;


                 "(K) a process to control the disposal of pollutants on land or
               in subsurface excavations within such area to protect ground and
               surface water quality.
Section 201
                "SEC. 201.  (a) It is the purpose of this title to require and to assist
              the development and implementation of waste treatment management
              plans and practices which will achieve the goals of this Act.
                "(b) Waste treatment management plans and practices shall provide
              for the application of the best practicable waste treatment technology
              before any discharge into receiving waters, including reclaiming and
              recycling of water, and confined disposal of pollutants so they will not
              migrate to cause water or other environmental pollution and shall pro-
              vide for consideration of advanced waste treatment techniques.
                " (c) To the extent practicable, waste treatment management shall be
              on an areawide basis and provide control or treatment of all point and
              nonpoint sources of pollution, including in place or accumulated pol-
              lution sources.
                "(d) The Administrator shall  encourage waste treatment manage-.
              ment which results in the construction of revenue producing facilities
              providing for—
                    "(I) the recycling of potential sewage pollutants through the
                  production of agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture products, or
                  any combination thereof;
                    '•(2)  the  confined and contained  disposal  of pollutants not
                  recycled;
                     (3) the reclamation of wastcwater; and
                    "(4) the ultimate disposal  of sludge in a manner that will not
                  result in environmental hazards.
                "(e)  The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment manage-
              ment which  results in integrating facilities for sewage.treatment and
              recycling with facilities to treat, dispose of, or utilize other industrial
              and municipal  wastes, including  but  not limited to solid waste and
              waste heat and  thermal discharges. Such integrated facilities shall be
-------
               designed  and operated to produce revenues in excess of capital and
               operation and maintenance costs and such revenues shall be used by
               the designated regional management agency to aid in financing other
               environmental improvement programs.
                 •'(f)  The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment manage-
               ment which combines 'open space' and recreational considerations with
               such management.
                 "(tf)(l) The  Administrator is authorized to make  grants to any
               State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency  for the
               construction of publicly owned treatment works.
                 "(2)  The Administrator shall not make grants from funds author-
               ized for any  fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1974, to any State,
               municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the erection,
               building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or exten-
               sion of treatment  works unless the grant applicant has satisfactorily
               demonstrated to the Administrator that—
                    "(A) alternative waste management techniques have been stud-
                   ied and evaluated and the works proposed for grant  assistance
                   will  provide  for  the application of the best practicable  waste
                   treatment technology over the life of the works consistent with the
                   purposes of this title; and
                    "(B)  as  appropriate,  the works proposed for grant  assistance
                   •will  take into account and allow to the extent practicable the
                   application of technology at a  later date, which  will provide for
                   the reclaiming or recycling of water or otherwise eliminate the
                   discharge of pollutanis.
Section 304
Section 212
                       The Administrator, after consultation v/ith appropriate Fed-
                pml «nd  Sti'te  agencies pnd  other  interested  persons, phnil publish
                within nine months aft-r the date of enactment of this title (raid from
                time, to time, thereaficr) information on  alternative  waste treatment
                management techniques uncl systems available to implement section
                •J>Q1 of this Act.
                  "SEC. 212. As used in this title—
                  "(1)  The term 'construction' means any one or more of the follow-
                ing: preliminary planning to determine "the feasibility of treatment
                works, engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, or economic investiga-
                tions or studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifica-
                tions,  procedures,  or other  necessary actions,  erection,  building,
                acquisition, alteration,  remodeling, improvement,  or extension of
                treatment  works, or the inspection  or supervision  of any of the
                foregoing items.
                  '' 2) (A) The term 'treatment works' means any devices and systems
                Uf°d in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal
                sewage  or  industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section
                201 of this Act, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most eco-
                nomical cost over the estimated life of the works, including intercept-
                ing sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping, power,
                and other equipment, and their appurtenances; extensions, improve-
                ments, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof;  elements essen-
                tial to provide a reliable  recycled supply  such as standby treatment
                units and clear well facilities; and any works, including site acquisition
                of the land that will be an integral part  of the treatment process or is
                used for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treatment.
                  "(B)  In addition to the definition contained in subparagrapli  (A)
                of this paragraph, 'treatment works' means any other method or sys-
                tem for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating,
                or disposing of  municipal waste, including storm  water  runoff, or
                industrial waste, including waste in combined  storm water and sani-
                tary sewer systems. Any  application  for construction grants  which
                                                VI
-------
            mcludes wholly or in part such methods or systems shall, in accordance
            with guidelines published by the Administrator pursuant to subpara-
            graph (C) of this paragraph, contain  adequate  data and analysis
            demonstrating such proposal to be. over the, life  of such works, the
            most cost efficient alternative to comply with sections 301 or 302 of
            this Act, or the requirements of section 201 of this Act.

REGULATIONS

In addition to the legislation itself, regulations have been issued that
pertain to land application.  The following regulations represent a portion
of the EPA program to implement requirements  of Title II of the Act.

Areawide Waste Treatment Management (Section 208)

The regulatory basis for  Section 208 areawide waste treatment management
planning pertaining to land-application systems is  contained in  40 CFR 35,
subpart F, published in the Federal Register May  13, 1974.  The planning
for areawide waste treatment management consists of two interrelated con-
siderations: analysis and implementation.  Analysis serves to identify
important factors.  Implementation involves practical aspects for  realizing
alternatives that can improve water quality.  Under the Section 208 Interim
Grant Regulation,  implementation alternatives must consider all policy
variables that can be adjusted to produce improvement of water quality.
As one policy variable, land-application systems can play a significant
role in development of areawide planning management alternatives.

Disposition of residual wastes and control of disposal of pollutants must
be considered in formulation of areawide waste treatment management
plans.   Again,  the consideration of land-application systems is a means
for achieving this.

Grants for Construction of Treatment Works  (Section 201)

The Title II regulations set forth, in general, the procedures and condi-
tions for award of grant assistance.  Section 917 of these regulations
specifies the facilities planning requirements, and Appendix A  of these
regulations  gives the cost-effectiveness analysis guidelines.  Both guide-
lines include mention of land application as alternative waste management
systems.

Guidance for Facilities Planning - The publication, Guidance for Facilities
Planning, March 1974, provides supplemental guidance and information
regarding planning and evaluation of various alternatives for publicly-
owned waste treatment works. Basically, facilities planning mcludes
(1)  a statement of the problems;  (2) an inventory of existing systems;
(3)  a projection of future  conditions; (4) setting of goals and objectives;
(5)  an evaluation of alternatives, which may variously include land treat-
ment or reuse of wastewater, flow reduction measures  (including the
correction of excessive infiltration/flows, alternative system configura-
tions , phased development of facilities, or improvements in operation and
maintenance) to meet those goals and  objectives; and (6)  an assessment of
the environmental impacts of the alternatives.  Such planning provides for
cost-effective and environmentally sound treatment works which will meet
applicable effluent limitations.
                                      vii
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines - Regulations for the cost-effectiveness
analysis (40 CFR 35 Appendix A),  published in the Federal Register on
September 10, 1973,  provide information for determining the most cost-
effective  waste treatment management system or the most cost-effective
component part of any waste treatment management system, including
the identification, selection, and screening of alternative waste management
systems.  These alternatives should include systems discharging to receiving
waters, systems using land or subsurface disposal techniques,  and systems
employing the reuse of wastewater.  A complete text of the guidelines is
included herein as Appendix G.

Secondary Treatment Information  (Section  304 (d) (1))

Information on secondary treatment (40CFR 133) was published in the
Federal Register on August 17, 1973.  Land-application systems with point
source discharges must comply with these minimum standards.

Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste
Treatment (Section 304 (d) (2))

This publication provides information on best practicable  treatment technology
(BPT) and contains information and criteria for waste management techniques
involving land application.  The proposed BPT criteria for a land-application
system where the effluent results  in permanent groundwater are based on
protection of groundwater for drinking water supply purposes.  The proposed
version, dated March 1974,  is now being finalized.
                                    viii
-------
                             CONTENTS
Part                                                            Page
          ABSTRACT                                             ii
          FOREWORD                                            iii
          STATUTORY AND SUB-STATUTORY BASIS                 iv
          FIGURES                                               xi
          TABLES                                               xi
          PARTICIPANTS                                         xii
          INTRODUCTION                                          1
          EVALUATION CHECKLIST
          Part I   -  Facilities Plan                                  5
          Part II  -  Design Plans and Specifications                  15
          Part HI -  Operation and Maintenance Manual                19
I         WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
          A.  Project Objectives                                    21
          B.  Evaluation of Wastewater Characteristics                23
          C.  Evaluation of Potential Sites                           31
          D.  Consideration of Land-Application Alternatives           41
          E.  Design Considerations                                 51
          F.  Environmental Assessment                            83
          G.  Implementation Program                              89
II         DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
          A.  Agreement with Facilities Plan                         93
          B.  Site Characteristics                                  95
          C.  Design Criteria                                     101
          D.  Expected Treatment Performance                      113
III        OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
          A.  EPA - Considerations for Preparation of
              Operation and Maintenance Manuals                    117
          B.  Operating Procedures                                123
          C.  Monitoring                                         127
          D.  Impact Control                                      131
                                   ix
-------
                            CONTENTS (Continued)

Part                                                              Page
IV         APPENDIXES
           A.  References                                          133
           B.  Selected Annotated Bibliography                       149
           C.  Glossary of Terms,  Abbreviations,  Symbols,
              and Conversion Factors                               155
           D.  Typical Summary of Design Criteria for
               Land-Application Systems                             163
           E.  Proposed California Regulations                       167
           F.  Sources of Data                                      179
           G.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines                181
                                     x
-------
                               FIGURES
No.                                                                 Page
  1     Planning Sequence for Land-Application Alternatives             2
  2     Typical Frequency Analysis for Total Annual Precipitation       33
  3     Methods of Land Application                                   42
  4     Irrigation Techniques                                         46

                               TABLES
  1     General Guidelines for Salinity in Irrigation Water              25
  2     Water-Quality Guidelines                                      27
  3     Recommended Maximum Concentrations of Trace
        Elements in Irrigation Waters                                 29
  4     Comparison of Irrigation,  Overland Flow, and
        Infiltration-Percolation of Municipal Wastewater                41
  5     Water Balance for Example No. 1                              54
  6     Typical Values of Crop Uptakes of Nitrogen                     57
  7     Yield Decrement to be Expected for Field Crops  Due
        to Salinity of Irrigation Water When Common Surface
        Methods  are Used                                             68
  8     Yield Decrement to be Expected for Forage Crops
        Due to Salinity of Irrigation Water                             69
  9     Calculation of Storage Volume Requirements per Acre
        of Field Area for Example No. 3                               72
10     Estimated Annual Manhour Requirements for Land-
        Application Alternatives with a Design Flow of 1. 0 mgd          76
11     Suggested Service  Life for Components of an
        Irrigation System                                             79
12     Removal Efficiencies of Major Constituents for
        Municipal Land-Application Systems                          113
D-l     Irrigation                                                   163
D-2     Infiltration-Percolation                                       164
D-3     Overland Flow                                              165
                                      xi
-------
                            PARTICIPANTS


EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Mr. Belford L. Seabrook

TECHNICAL REVIEW: later-Agency Soil Treatment Systems Work Group


EPA Members

   Richard E. Thomas, OR&D (Chairman)
     Kerr Water Research Center,  Ada, Oklahoma
   Belford L. Seabrook,  Office of Water Program Operations,
     Washington,  B.C.
   Darwin R. Wright, OR&D
     Municipal Pollution Control Division, Washington, D.C.
   G. Kenneth Dotson, National Environmental Research Center
     Cincinnati, Ohio
   Stuart C. Peterson, Region I, Boston
   Daniel J. Kraft, Region n,  New York
   W. L. Carter,  J. Potosnak, Region HI, Philadelphia
   J. David Ariail, Region IV, Atlanta
   Eugene I. Chaiken, Region V, Chicago
   Jerry W. Smith and Richard G. Hoppers, Region VI, Dallas
   Jay Zimmerman, Region VII, Kansas City
   R. Hagen and Roger Dean, Region VIII,  Denver
   Lewis G. Porteous, Region DC, San Francisco
   Norman Sievertson, Region X, Seattle

Other Members

   Charles E. Pound                           Eliot Epstein, USDA
   Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.                         Beltsville, Maryland
   Palo Alto, California
                                              George L.  Braude,  FDA
   Sherwood C. Reed, CRREL                   Washington, D.C.
   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
   Hanover, New Hampshire                     Jack C. Taylor, FDA
                                              Rockville,  Maryland
   William E. Larson, USDA
   University of Minnesota
   St. Paul, Minnesota

CONTRACTOR:  Metcalf  & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, California

   Supervision:       Franklin L. Burton,  Chief Engineer

   Authors:          Charles E. Pound, Project Manager
                    Ronald W. Crites, Project Engineer
                    Douglas A. Griffes

   Consultant:       Dr. George Tchobanoglous, University of California,
                     Davis
                                   xii
-------
                              INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this publication is to suggest procedures for the evaluation and
review of municipal wastewater treatment system alternatives that employ
the land application of effluent.  It is not intended to be used as a design guide.
An Evaluation Checklist and background information are provided, and procedures
are given for evaluating alternatives dealing with irrigation, infiltration-
percolation, overland flow,  or combinations of these land-application approaches.
Systems involving injection wells,  sealed evaporation ponds, or septic-tank leach
fields for wastewater disposal are excluded, as are systems in which sludge is
applied to the  land.

To properly evaluate each step involved in planning,  design, and operation of soil
systems, the Evaluation Checklist is divided into three major parts dealing with:
(1) facilities plans, (2) design plans and specifications, and (3) operation and
maintenance manuals. Organization of the text containing the background informa-
tion parallels  the Evaluation Checklist and is keyed to it by appropriate symbols
in the headings.

FACILITIES PLAN (PART I)

The recommended wastewater management plan should be based on the apparent
best alternative as derived from a detailed evaluation of the various treatment
alternatives.  These alternatives should  include systems using land-application
as required in the cost-effectiveness analysis  guidelines  (40 CFR 35,  Appendix A)
and the best practicable treatment (BPT) document [3] .  When BPT is referred
to throughout this bulletin,  it refers to reference [3], which was in proposed form
at the time of  publication, and any future revisions to that document.

The focus of Part I is on the thorough evaluation of land-application alternatives,
and the preparation of a detailed facilities plan.  It should be used in conjunction
with Guidance for Facilities Planning  [62].  The result should be definitive
regarding design criteria, so that design plans and specifications may easily
follow.  An attempt has been made to  avoid restrictive or dogmatic standards
because most  design criteria are site-specific.  Instead, important considerations
are discussed and reasonable ranges suggested. Key elements to consider are:
(1) Did the engineer consider appropriate land-application approaches or combina-
tions and modifications thereof, and (2) What was the basis for screening the
land-application alternatives?

Emphasis is placed on long-range planning and environmental factors. Are
the alternatives compatible with local and regional planning goals and objectives?
With regard to environmental factors, a  careful assessment must be made of
the completeness and detail of the investigation and the overall design considera-
tions provided to minimise any adverse impacts.

The normal sequence and interrelationship of steps in the preparation of a
wastewater management plan are presented in Figure 1.  For the most part,
-------
      EVALUATION OF

       WASTEWATER

     CHARACTERISTICS
      EVALUATION OF
     POTENTIAL SITES
    LA'ID APPLICATION

      ALTERNATIVES
         DESIGN
     CONSIDERATIONS
      ENVIRONMENTAL

       ASSESSMENT
     PLAN SELECTION
     IMPLEMENTATION

         PROGRAM
PREAPPLICATION
   TREATMENT

    DESIGN
                                       SITE
                                   CHARACTERISTICS
                                      OVERLOAD
   ADVERSE

   IMPACTS
                                 .J
                                                                  REVIEW AND

                                                                  REEVALUATE
                                 .J
         Figure 1.  Planning sequence for land-application alternatives
these steps correspond directly in title and sequence to the sections in Part I.
The planning process involves repeating the sequence of steps until the implemen-
tation program is finalized.

DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (PART II)

The design plans and specifications should be a logical extension of the facilities
plan.  Details  of the wastewater management plan are presented in the plans and
specifications  for implementation and construction purposes.  A complete listing
of site characteristics and major design criteria should accompany or be included
in the plans  and specifications for ease in evaluation.   Important considerations
in design are discussed in Part II with stress placed on the continuity between
recommendations in the facilities plan and features of the design.
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL (PART HI)

The Operation and Maintenance Manual is a tool of fundamental importance for
management of the treatment system.  The design concepts should be clearly
explained and procedures for operating and maintaining the facilities must be
delineated.  The manual is intended to be a guide  for the operators of the treat-
ment facilities  and will help to ensure that they understand the key design features
and the objectives for which the system was designed.  The manual should include
maintenance schedules, monitoring programs,  and recommendations for man-
power  utilization.  Additionally,  potential problem areas,  symptoms of process
malfunction, and methods of control of adverse impacts should be described.
Special considerations, such as agricultural practices for irrigation  systems,
should also  be included.

Extensive reference is made to Considerations for the Preparation of Operation
and Maintenance Manuals [61]  throughout Part III, and Section A is devoted en-
tirely to a discussion of the use of this reference.  In the remaining three
sections,  additional considerations particular to operation and maintenance
manuals for land-application systems are presented.

CONSIDERATION OF SYSTEM SIZE

The scope of the Evaluation Checklist is aimed at moderate-to-large sized land-
application systems.  The extent to which planning and design of small  systems
(say 0.5 mgd or less) should adhere to all points in the checklist is left to the
discretion of the evaluator.

SOURCES OF DATA

Throughout this report, major sources of information on each subject are cited
for easy references.  These sources should not be viewed as the only ones avail -
able; when appropriate, other interested  agencies, such as the USDA and FDA,
or local government,  university, or independent consultants should be sought out
for pertinent data.  References cited by bracketed numbers in the text are listed
in alphabetical order in Appendix A.  A short annotated bibliography of  the
major reports on land application of wastewater is included as Appendix B.

PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE

In many cases,  public acceptance may be the primary limiting factor in the
implementation of land-application projects.  At each step in the review process,
the evaluator should ensure that areas of public concern have been identified,
and that these concerns are reflected in the facilities plan, plans and specifica-
tions, and operation and maintenance manual.

One source  of public concern is often the relative uncertainty over various health
effects.  With regard to this concern,  the evaluator should pay particular atten-
tion to  such  items  as the degree of preapplication treatment, types of crops that
may be grown,  and the degree  of public contact with the effluent.
-------
               EVALUATION CHECKLIST FOR TREATMENT
    ALTERNATIVES EMPLOYING LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER
The purpose of this checklist is to provide reviewers with the pertinent factors
to be considered in the planning, design, and operation of systems employing
land application of municipal effluents.  The format of the checklist has been
selected to enable the reviewer to enter a check mark  or comment to the right
of each item.  Items are arranged so that the more important ones appear first.
Those  items for which a dashed checkline appears are desirable but not essential
considerations.  The notation and headings used are generally the same as those
used in the background information text.

                        Part I FACILITIES PLAN
A.  Project Objectives
    Objectives and goals relevant to water quality,
    protection of groundwater aquifer, the need for
    augmenting existing water resources,  and any
    other desired effects should be considered
    initially.
B.  Evaluation of Wastewater Characteristics
    1.  Flowrates
        Present, projected, and peak flow
    2.  Existing treatment
        a.  Description
        b.  Adequacy for intended project
    3.  Existing effluent disposal facilities
        a.  Description
        b.  Consideration of water rights
    4.  Composition of  effluent to be applied
        a.  Total dissolved solids
        b.  Suspended solids
        c.  Organic matter (BOD, COD, TOG)
        d.  Nitrogen forms (all)
        e.  Phosphorus
-------
I-B.4. (continued)
        f.   Inorganic ions
             (1)  Heavy metals and trace elements
             (2)  Exchangeable cations (SAR)-
             (3)  Boron
        g.   Bacteriological quality
        h.   Projected changes in characteristics
        i.   Are industrial wastewater components
             considered?
        j.   BPT constituents
C.  Evaluation of Potential Sites
    All potential sites should be considered on the
    basis of the criteria listed in this  section, and
    should be reevaluated in the light of design
    considerations and environmental  assessment.
    1.  General description
        a.   Location
             (1)  Distance from collection area or
                 treatment plant
             (2)  Elevation relative to collection
                 area
        b.   Compatibility with overall land-
             use plan
             (1)  Current use
             (2)  Proposed future use
             (3)  Zoning and adjacent land use
             (4)  Proximity to current and
                 planned developed areas
             (5)  Is there room for future
                 expansion?
        c.   Proximity to surface water
        d.   Number and size of available land
             parcels
    2.  Description of environmental  characteristics
        a.   Climate
             (1)  Precipitation analysis and seasonal
                 distribution
             (2)  Storm intensities
-------
I-C.2.a. (continued)
             (3)  Temperature, with seasonal
                 variations
             (4)  Evapotranspiration
             (5)  Wind velocities and direction
        b.   Topography
             (1)  Ground slope
             (2)  Description of adjacent land
             (3)  Erosion potential
             (4)  Flood potential
             (5)  Extent of clearing and field
                 preparation necessary
        c.   Soil characteristics
             (1)  Type and description
             (2)  Infiltration and percolation potential
             (3)  Soil profile
             (4)  Evaluation by soil specialists
        d.   Geologic formations
             (1)  Type and description
             (2)  Evaluation by geologist
             (3)  Depth of formations
             (4)  Earthquake potential
        e.   Groundwater
             (1)  Depth to groundwater
             (2)  Groundwater flow
             (3)  Depth and extent of any perched
                 water
             (4)  Quality compared to  requirements
             (5)  Current and planned  use
             (6)  Location of existing wells
                 (a)  On site
                 (b)  Adjacent to site
        f.    Receiving water  (other than groundwater)
             (1)  Type of body
-------
I-C. 2. f. (continued)
             (2)  Current use
             (3)  Existing quality
             (4)  Is it water-quality limited?
             (5)  Is it effluent limited?
             (6)  Water rights
    3.   Methods of land acquisition or control
         a.   Purchase
         b.   Lease
         c.   Purchase and lease back to farmer
         d.   Contract with users
         e.   Other
D.  Consideration of Land-Application Alternatives
    Based on the project objectives and characteristics
    of the selected potential sites, appropriate methods
    of land application should be considered.
    1.   Irrigation
         a.   Purpose
             (I)  Optimization of crop yields
             (2)  Maximization of effluent application
             (3)  Landscape irrigation
         b.   Application techniques
             (1)  Spraying
             (2)  Ridge and furrow
             (3)  Flooding
    2.   Infiltration-percolation
         a.   Purpose
             (1)  Groundwater recharge
             (2)  Pumped withdrawal or underdrains
             (3)  Interception by surface water
         b.   Application techniques
             (1)  Spreading
             (2)  Spraying
-------
I-D. (continued)
    3.   Overland flow (spray-runoff)
         a.   Purpose
             (1)  Discharge to surface waters
             (2)  Reuse of collected runoff
         b.   Application techniques
             (1)  Spraying
             (2)  Flooding
    4.   Combinations of treatment techniques
         a.   Combinations of land-application
             techniques at the same or different
             sites
         b.   Combinations of land-application
             with in-plant treatment and receiving
             water discharge
    5.   Compatibility with site characteristics
E.  Design Considerations
    1.   Loading rates
         a.   Liquid loading/water balance
             (1)  Design precipitation
             (2)  Effluent application
             (3)  Evapotranspiration
             (4)  Percolation
             (5)  Runoff (for overland flow systems)
         b.   Nitrogen mass balance
             (1)  Total annual load
             (2)  Total annual crop uptake
             (3)  Denitrification and volatilization
             (4)  Addition to groundwater or
                 surface water
         c.   Phosphorus mass balance
         d.   Organic loading rate (BOD)
             (1)  Daily loading
             (2)  Resting-drying period for oxidation
         e.   Loadings of other constituents
-------
I-E. (continued)
     2.   Land requirements
         a.   Field area requirement
         b.   Buffer zone allowance
         c.   Land for storage
         d.   Land for buildings,  roads and ditches
         e.   Land for future expansion or
             emergencies
     3.   Crop selection
         a.   Relationship to critical loading
             parameter
         b.   Public health regulations
         c.   Ease of cultivation and harvesting
         d.   Length of growing season
         e.   Landscape requirements
         f.   Forestland
     4.   Storage requirements
         a.   Related to length of operating
             season and climate
         b.   For system backup
         c.   For flow equalization
         d.   Secondary uses of stored wastewater
     5.   Preapplication treatment requirements
         a.   Public health considerations
         b.   Relationship to loading rate
         c.   Relationship to effectiveness of
             physical equipment
     6.   Management considerations
         a.   System control and maintenance
         b.   Manpower requirements
         c.   Monitoring requirements
         d.   Emergency procedures
     7.   Cost-effectiveness analysis
         a.   Capital cost considerations
             (1)  Construction or other cost  index
             (2)  Service life of equipment
             (3)  Land cost
                                      10
-------
I-E.7. (continued)
        b.  Fixed annual costs
            (1)   Labor
            (2)   Maintenance
            (3)   Monitoring
        c.  Flow-related annual costs
            (1)   Power
            (2)   Crop sale or disposal
        d.  Nonmonetary factors
    8.  Flexibility of alternative
        a.  With regard to changes in treatment
            requirements
        b.  With regard to changes in wastewater
            characteristics
        c.  For ease of expansion
        d.  With regard to changing land
            utilization
        e.  With regard to technological advances
    9.  Reliability
        a.  To meet or exceed discharge
            requirements
        b.  Failure rate due to operational
            breakdown
        c.  Vulnerability to natural disasters
        d.  Adequate supply of required resources
        e.  Factors-of-safety
   10.  Best practicable waste treatment technology (BPT)
        a.  Requirements for groundwater quality
        b.  Requirements for treatment and discharge
F.  Environmental Assessment
    The impact of the project on the environment,
    including public health, social, and economic
    aspects must be  assessed for each land-
    application alternative.
    1.  Environmental impact
        a.  On soil and vegetation
        b.  On groundwater
            (1)   Quality
                                    11
-------
I-F.l.b. (continued)
             (2)  Levels and flow direction
         c.   On surface water
             (1)  Quality
             (2)  Influence on flow
         d.   On animal and insect life
         e.   On air quality
         f.   On local climate
    2.   Public health effects
         a.   Groundwater quality
         b.   Insects and rodents
         c.   Runoff from  site
         d.   Aerosols
         e.   Contamination of crops
    3.   Social impact
         a.   Relocation of residents
         b.   Effects on greenbelts and open space
         c.   Effect on recreational activities
         d.   Effect on community growth
    4.   Economic impact
         a.   On overall local economy
         b.   Tax considerations (land)
         c.   Conservation of resources and energy
G.  Implementation Program
    The ability to implement the project must be
    assessed in light of the  overall impact, the
    effectiveness of the tentative design, and with
    regard to public opinion.
    1.   Public information  program
         a.   Approaches to  public presentation
             (1)  Local  officials
             (2)  Public hearings
             (3)  Mass media
                                      12
-------
I-G.l.a. (continued)
            (4)  Local residents and land owners
            (5)  Communication with special-
                interest groups
        b.   Public opinion
            (1)  Engineer's response
            (2)  Review of problem areas
    2.   Legal considerations
    3.   Reevaluation of ability to implement project
    4.   Implementation schedule
        a.   Construction schedule
        b.   Long-range management plan
                                     13
-------
            EVALUATION CHECKLIST FOR TREATMENT SYSTEMS
            EMPLOYING LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER
                Part II DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The purpose of this part is to ensure completeness of the engineering design
considerations and to assess the compatibility of the design with the facilities
plan.
A.  Agreement with Facilities Plan
    1.   Modifications
         a.   Have modifications affected other
             design criteria?
         b.   Is supporting material included?
         c.   Were pilot studies recommended in
             the report?
    2.   Reevaluation of facilities plan
         a.   With regard  to changes in the interim
             period
             (1)  In federal or state regulations
             (2)  In basin planning
         b.   With regard  to findings of pilot
             studies
B.  Site Characteristics
    1.   Topography
         a.   Site plan
         b.   Effects of adjacent topography
             (1)  Will it add storm runoff?
             (2)  Will it back up water onto site ?
             (3)  Will it provide relief for drainage ?
         c.   Erosion-prevention considerations
         d.   Earthwork required
             (1)  For field preparation
             (2)  For transmission, storage, and roads
                                      15
-------
II-B.l.  (continued)
         e.   Method of disposal of trees, brush,
             and debris
    2.   Soil
         a.   Soil maps
         b.   Soil profiles
             (1)  Location
             (2)  Physical and chemical analysis
    3.   Geohydrology
         a.   Map of important geologic formations
         b.   Analysis of geologic discontinuities
         c.   Groundwater analysis
 C.  Design Criteria
     1.   Climatic factors
         a.   Precipitation
             (1)  Total annual precipitation
             (2)  Record maximum and minimum
                  annual
             (3)  Monthly distribution
             (4)  Storm intensities
             ,(5)  Effects of snow
         b.  Temperature
             (1)  Monthly or seasonal averages and
                  variation
             (2)  Length of growing season
             (3)  Period of freezing conditions
         c.  Wind
     2.  Infiltration and percolation rates
         a.  Design rates
         b.   Basis of  determination
              (1)  Agriculture extension service or
                  soil  specialists
              (2)  From soil borings and profiles
              (3)  From analysis of SCS soil surveys
                                      16
-------
H-C.2.b. (continued)
             (4)  From farming experience
             (5)  From results of pilot studies
    3.   Loading rates
         a.   List of loading rates
         b.   Critical loading rate
    4.   Land requirements
         a.   Application area
             (1)  Wetted area
             (2)  Field area
         b.   For buffer zones
         c.   For storage
         d.   For preapplication treatment, buildings,
             and roads
         e.   For future or emergency needs
    5.   Application rates and  cycle
         a.   Annual liquid loading rate
         b.   Length of operating season
         c.   Application cycle
             (1)  Application period and rate
             (2)  Weekly application rate
             (3)  Resting or drying period
             (4)  Rotation of plots or basins
    6.   Crops/vegetation
         a.   Compatibility with site characteristics
             and loading rates
         b.   Nutrient uptake
         c:   Cultivation and harvesting requirements
         d.   Suitability for  meeting health criteria
    7.   System components
         a.   Preapplication treatment facilities
        b.   Transmission  facilities
         c.   Storage facilities
        d.   Distribution system
                                      17
-------
II-C.7.  (continued)
        e.   Recovery system
        f.   Monitoring system
    8.  Design flexibility
        a.   Provisions for system expansion
        b.   Provisions for system modification
        c.   Interconnections and partial isolation
    9.  Reliability
        a.   Factors-of-safety
        b.   Backup systems
        c.   Contingency provisions
             (1)  Equipment or unit failure
             (2)  Natural disasters
             (3)  Severe weather
             (4)  Unexpected peak flows
D.  Expected Treatment Performance
    1.  Removal efficiencies for major
        constituents
    2.  Remaining concentrations in renovated
        water
                                       18
-------
            EVALUATION CHECKLIST FOR TREATMENT SYSTEMS
             EMPLOYING LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER
             Part III  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
The operation and maintenance manual should be prepared in accordance with
EPA guidelines that deal specifically with the subject; however, special consider-
ations for land-application systems are presented.
A.  EPA — Considerations for Preparation of Operation
    and Maintenance Manuals
    1.  Introduction
    2.  Permits and standards
    3.  Description, operation,  and control of
        wastewater treatment facilities
    4.  Description, operation,  and control of
        sludge-handling facilities
    5.  Personnel
    6.  Laboratory testing
    7.  Records
    8.  Maintenance
    9.  Emergency operating and response program
   10.  Safety
   11.  Utilities
   12.  Electrical system
   13.  Appendixes
B.  Operating Procedures
    1.  Application of effluent
        a.  Distribution system
        b.  Schedule of application
    2.  Agricultural practices
        a.  Purpose of crop
        b.  Description of crop  requirements
        c.  Planting, cultivation,  and harvesting
                                    19
-------
in-B. (continued)
    3.  Recovery of renovated water
    4.  Storage
    5.  Special problems and emergency
        conditions
C.  Monitoring
    1.  Parameters to be monitored
    2.  Monitoring procedures
        a.  Location of sampling points
        b.  Schedule of sampling
    3.  Interpretation of results
    4.  Surveillance and reporting
D.  Impact Control
    1.  Description of possible adverse effects
        a.  Environmental
        b.  Public health
        c.  Social
        d.  Economic
    2.  Indexes of critical effects
    3.  Methods of control
    4.  Methods of remedial action
                                    20
-------
          PART I

     WASTE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
-------
                                Section A

                          PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Proper evaluation of land application of wastewater as a treatment alternative
requires that a clear set of project goals and objectives be established.  The
success of the project will depend to a large degree upon the careful formulation
of these objectives.  Some of the major questions that should be answered are:

    •  What are the immediate and long-term water-quality objectives?

    •  Is there potential  for meeting the BPT requirements for protecting
       groundwater?

    •  Is there a need to consider wastewater as a means of augmenting exist-
       ing water resources?

    •  What are the areal plans and policies for land use?

    •  Is there a need to minimize land requirements?

    •  Is there a need to minimize use of resources (or energy)?

Immediate and long-term water-quality objectives should be determined for both
surface '.vaters and groundwater in order that treatment requirements may be
assessed for potential systems.  These objectives should be related to both the
basin water  quality management plan (40 CFR 131), and the areawide waste
treatment plan (40 CFR 35.1050)..  Critical parameters and constituents, and
special water-quality problems of a. particular area should be identified.

The BPT requirements [s] establish a need to protect all groundwater to
some level.  As stated in the BPT document, "land application practices should
not further degrade the air,  land, or navigable waters; should not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of public health, state, or local land use
policies; and should insure the protection of public water supplies, agricultural
and industrial  water uses, propagation of a balanced population of aquatic and
land flora and  fuana, and recreational activities in the area."  The water-quality
criteria for  drinking water supplies are the most thoroughly defined of the above
objectives, and may often be adequate alone. However, there may be instances
where more stringent quality criteria may be required to protect beneficial uses
other than "drinking water.  A determination should be made of the potential for
meeting the  BPT requirements for protecting groundwater based on the effluent
quality to be applied (I-B. 4), the site and groundwater characteristics (I-C. 2),
the type of land-application system (I-D), and design loading rates (I-E.l).

The overall  water-use plan should be evaluated to determine the value of using
wastewater to  augment existing water resources. For many areas, the reuse of
wastewater may offer new water-use possibilities, or may relieve requirements
for fresh water.  Irrigation,  groundwater recharge, and  water-based recreation
are water-use possibilities that could be investigated.
                                    21
-------
Land-use trends and plans should be evaluated to determine if a land-application
system would be compatible with other land uses,  and if land exists that may
benefit from land application of effluent.  The need for land for other purposes,
such as industrial, commercial, or residential expansion should be determined,
as should beneficial effects, such as development  of agricultural land, parks, or
greenbelts.

The availability of land may be limited or land costs may be high in many
densely populated or developed areas.  The need to minimize land requirements
will then become an important consideration in which high-rate application sys-
tems, such as infiltration-percolation and overland flow, are emphasized.

Resources necessary for various treatment alternatives that must be conserved
should be noted.  Materials and chemicals required for certain treatment pro-
cesses, and energy are among those resources that may be limited in supply and
must be conserved.
                                    22
-------
                                  Section B

             EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
A necessary preliminary step when planning for a land-application system, as
with any other treatment system, is a detailed evaluation of the wastewater
characteristics.  The characteristics will, to some degree, affect the treatment
method —whether irrigation, overland flow, or infiltration-percolation — and will
directly affect the system design.  Evaluation of the wastewater characteristics
should include:  (1)  flowrates, (2) quality changes resulting from existing
treatment, (3) existing effluent disposal practices, and (4)  composition of
effluent.

B. 1.  FLOWRATES

The quantity of effluent to be treated by the land-application system should be
estimated as closely as possible.  Clearly, the success of the project will de-
pend to a large degree on the accuracy of estimating flowrates.   Flowrates
which should be estimated include:

      •  Present or initial flow

      •  Present sustained peak flow

      •  Projected future flow

      •  Projected sustained peak flow

Instantaneous peaks (less than 1 hour in duration) will have little effect on most
designs; however, sustained peaks for 3 or 4 hours or more may require special
design features in pumping,  preapplication treatment, or storage.  In some cases.
industrial flows,  such as from canneries, may result in seasonal peaks lasting
for several months.  In such cases,  special provisions must be made,  such as
using additional land.

Stormwater  must be considered for combined sewer systems and an infiltration/
inflow analysis must be conducted on sanitary sewer systems to determine the
extent of groundwater or stormwater infiltration. The EPA publication on urban
stormwater  management and technology [79]  will be a useful reference for as-
sessing the magnitude of stormwater flows and the problems that may be  en-
countered.   Infiltration/inflow analysis should be conducted in accordance with
Federal Regulation 35.927 [59] and the EPA publication entitled,  Guidance for
Sewer System Evaluation [63] .  Where large sustained peaking factors exist
as a result of infiltration/inflow or industrial/commercial activity, considera-
tion may be  given to storage for flow equalization.
                                    23
-------
B.2.  EXISTING TREATMENT

Where land application is to be used, varying degrees of preapplication treat-
ment,  ranging from primary screening to secondary treatment with advanced
treatment for certain constituents may be required.  The degree of preapplica-
tion treatment necessary will depend upon a number of factors,  including the
land-application method, the effluent limitations established,  the groundwater-
quality criteria established in the BPT document Qf), and the design features
of the system (see I-E,. 5).  In most cases where land application is to be an
additional step, existing treatment facilities  may partially fulfill preapplica-
tion treatment requirements.  The existing facilities should be evaluated for
capacity, degree of treatment, and adaptability for land-application alternatives.

B. 3.  EXISTING EFFLUENT DISPOSAL FACILITIES

Existing effluent disposal practices should be described as they relate to the
overall basin hydrology.  Existing and proposed effluent or water-quality stand-
ards should be specified, and the record of effluent quality should be reviewed.
The two  should be  compared and  any discrepancies should be explained.  Exist-
ing water rights should be investigated if a change is anticipated in disposal
practice. In the western states,  where water rights are generally of greater
concern, it may be helpful  to consult with the state  agency involved in water
rights.

B. 4.  COMPOSITION O F E FF LUENT

The composition of the effluent to be applied  to the  land should be evaluated with
respect to the constituents in the following discussion.  The constituents of
importance in an individual case  will depend  upon the effluent limitations,
groundwater  protection criteria from the BPT document, and guidelines for
irrigation water quality.  The concentrations determined should be related to
existing pre application treatment practices and to additional preapplication
treatment requirements as discussed in Section E.   The degree to which the
list is  adhered to is dependent upon the type  and size of the project, and the
sources  of wastewater.   Where high constituent concentrations are suspected,
they should be evaluated more thoroughly. Because the acceptability of
wastewater characteristics for land application will depend heavily upon site
characteristics, type and purpose of system, and loading rates, the evaluation
cannot be completed until these interactions  are considered.

B. 4. a.   Total Dissolved Solids

The aggregate of the dissolved compounds is the TDS (total dissolved solids).
The TDS content, which is related to the EC  (electrical conductivity), is gen-
erally  more important than the concentration of any specific ion.  High TDS
(total dissolved solids) wastewater can cause a salinity hazard to crops,
expecially where annual evapotranspiration exceeds annual precipitation.
A general classification as to salinity hazard by TDS content and electrical
conductivity is given in Table 1.  It should be noted that these values were
developed primarily for the arid  and semiarid parts of the country.  The


                                      24
-------
effects of high TDS on crop yields are discussed in Section E (I-E.3.a.).
High-TDS wastewater may also create problems if allowed to percolate to
the permanent groundwater.
             Table 1.  GENERAL GUIDE LINES FOR SALINITY IN
                         IRRIGATION WATER3 [110]
                Classification11
 TDS,  mg/1    EC, mmhos/cm
        Water for which no detrimental
        effects are usually noticed

        Water that can have detrimental
        effects on sensitive crops

        Water that can have adverse
        effects on many crops, re-
        quiring careful management
        practices

        Water that can be used for
        tolerant plants on permeable
        soils with careful management
        practices
  500
0.75
  500-1,000     0.75-1.50
1,000-2,000     1.50-3.00
2,000-5,000     3.00-7.50
        a.  Normally only of concern in arid and semiarid parts of the country.

        b.  Crops vary greatly in their tolerance to salinity (TDS or EC).  Crop
           tolerances are given in Section E.
B. 4. b.  Suspended Solids

Suspended solids in applied effluents are important because they have a
tendency to clog sprinkler nozzles and soil pores and to coat the land
surface.  A large percentage of the suspended solids can be removed easily
by sedimentation.  When applied to the land at acceptable loading rates,
almost complete removal can be expected from the percolate.

B. 4. c.  Organic Matter

Organic matter, as measured by BOD,  COD, and TOC, is present in the
dissolved form as well as in the form of suspended and colloidal solids.
Ordinarily, concentrations are low enough not to cause any short-term effects
on the soil or vegetation. Organic compounds, such as phenols,  surfactants,
and pesticides, are usually not a problem but in high concentrations they can
be toxic to microorganisms.
                                      25
-------
BOD applied is removed from the wastewater very efficiently by each land-
application method.  The loading applied, however, will greatly influence the
resting period for soil reaeration and may influence liquid loading rates
(I.E.l.d.).

For groundwater quality protection, the organic forms to be considered include
carbon chloroform extractable and carbon alcohol extractable compounds as
well as pesticides and foaming agents.  There are few data on removal of
these compounds by soils from applied municipal effluents.

B. 4. d Nitrogen Forms

Nitrogen contained in wastewater may be present as: ammonium, organic,
nitrate, and nitrite; with ammonium and organic usually being the principal
forms.  In a nitrified effluent, however, nitrate nitrogen will be the major
form.  Relationships between these forms and renovation mechanisms for land-
application treatment systems are explained in references [125,  130,  141].
Because nitrogen removal is sensitive  to a variety of environmental conditions,
monitoring of nitrogen concentrations is usually required.  To avoid confusion,
concentrations of each form should be expressed as nitrogen.

Nitrogen is important because when it is converted to the nitrate form, it is
mobile and can pass through the soil matrix with the percolate.  In ground-
water, nitrates are limited to 10 mg/1 by the  proposed BPT criteria, while
in surface waters nitrates may also aggravate problems of eutrophication.
Nitrogen loadings and removal mechanisms are discussed in Section E
(T-E.l.b.).

B. 4. e.  Phosphorus

Phosphorus contained in wastewater occurs mainly as inorganic compounds,
primarily phosphates, and is normally expressed as total phosphorus.  Phos-
phorus removal is accomplished through plant uptake and by fixation in the soil
matrix.  The long-term loadings of phosphorus are important because the fixa-
tion capability of some soils may be limited over the normal expected lifespan of
the system (I-E. I.e.).  Phosphorus that reaches surface waters as a result of
surface runoff or interception of groundwater flow may aggravate problems of
eutrophication.  Detailed discussions of phosphorus reactions in soil are con-
tained in Bailey [9] and ReedtlSOl.

B.4.f.  Inorganic Ions

Inorganic chemical constituents in wastewater can present problems to land-
application systems, through the effect of specific ions on the soil, plants, and
groundwater.  Irrigation requirements for chlorides, sulfates, boron,  and car-
bonates are detailed  in Water Quality Criteria (110, 1761.  Concentrations of
TDS, boron,  sodium, chlorides, and carbonates that could cause various dele-
terious effects  on plants are listed in Table 2. In most cases, the concentra-
tions present in municipal wastewater are within these limits; however, a
complete mineral analysis of the wastewater  should be  conducted.  Problems
encountered from high boron concentrations and high sodium adsorption ratios

                                      26
-------
                   Table 2.  WATER-QUALITY GUIDELINES [7]
                                                               Guideline values
     Problem and related constituent
                                                No problem
                Increasing
                 problems
                Severe
Salinity*

   EC of Irrigation water, in millimhos/cm

Permeability
   EC of Irrigation water, in mmho/cm
   SAR (Sodium adsorption ratio)

Specific ion toxicttyb
   .From root absorption

     Sodium (evaluate by SAR)
     Chloride, me/1
     Chloride, mg/1

     Boron,  mg/1

   From foliar absorption0 (sprinklers)

     Sodium,  me/1
     Sodium,  mg/1

     Chloride, me/1
     Chloride, mg/1
Miscellaneous


   NO4-N-J"  m
     3
                 for sensit've
                                                   <0. 75



                                                   >0.5

                                                   <6.0




                                                   <3

                                                   <4
                                                   <142

                                                   <0.5
                                                   <3.0
                                                   <69

                                                   <3.0
                                                   <106
<5
                 0.75-3.0



                <0.5

                 6.0-9.0




                 3,0-9.0

                 4.0-10
                 142-355

                 0.5-2.0
                >3.0
                >69

                >3.0
                >106
5-30
               >3.0



               <0. 2

               >9.0




               >9. 0

               >10
               >355

                2.0-10.0
>30
HCO , me/1
HCOg, mg/1
PH

[only with overhead"!
[sprinklers J

<1.5
<90
Normal range =
1.5-8.5
90-520
6.5-8.4
>8.5
>520
~
a.  Assumes water for crop plus needed water for leaching requirement (LR) will be applied.  Crops
    vary in tolerance to salinity.  Refer to tables for crop tolerance and LR.  mmho/cm x 640 =
    approximate total dissolved solids (TDS) in mg/1 or ppm; mmho x 1,000 = mipromhos.
b.  Most tree crops and woody ornamentals are  sensitive to sodium and chloride (use values shown).
    Most annual crops are not sensitive (use salinity tolerance tables).
c.  Leaf areas wet by sprinklers (rotating heads) may show a leaf burn due to sodium or chloride
    absorption under low-humidity, high-evaporation conditions.  (Evaporation increases ion
    concentration in water films on leaves between rotations-of sprinkler heads.)
d.  Excess  N may affect production or quality of certain crops',  e.g.,  sugar beets, citrus, grapes,
    avocados, apricots, etc.  (1 mg/1 NO3-N = 2. 72 Ib N/acre-ft of applied  water. )•  HCC>3 with
    overhead sprinkler irrigation may cause a white carbonate deposit to form on fruit and leaves.

Note:   Interpretations are based on possible effects of constituents on crops and/or soils.  Guidelines
       are flexible and should be modified when warranted by local experience or special conditions of
       crop,  soil,  and method of irrigation.
                                           27
-------
are perhaps the most common; however, heavy metals and trace elements can
also cause problems. Recommended maximum concentrations for trace ele-
ments in irrigation waters are given in Table 3.  For groundwater quality
protection, the constituents included in the BPT criteria are of importance.

B. 4. f. 1.  Heavy Metals and Trace Elements - Although some heavy metals
are essential in varying degrees for plant growth, most are toxic,  at varying
levels, to both plant  life and microorganisms. The major risk to land treat-
ment systems from heavy metals is in the long-term accumulation in the soil,
because they are retained in the soil matrix by adsorption,  chemical precipita-
tion, and ion exchange.  Retention capabilities are generally good for most
metals in most soils especially for pH values above 7.   Page  [113], Chapman
[27], and Mortvedt [107] have reviewed and discussed the fate and effects of
heavy metals in soils.

Generally, zinc, copper,  and nickel make the largest contributions to the total
heavy metal content.  Zinc is used as a  standard for plant toxicity, with copper
being twice as toxic and nickel being eight times as toxic (631.  A "zinc equiva-
lent" can thus be determined for these two metals.  Research is continuing in
an attempt to determine the relative phytotoxicities of other metals.  For
infiltration-pereolation  systems the effects of heavy metals reaching the ground-
water must be considered (see I-C. 2. e.).

B. 4. f. 2.  Exchangeable Cations - The effect  of concentrations of sodium,
calcium, and magnesium ions  deserves  special consideration.  They are
related by the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), defined as [371:


                            SAR  =        Na                             (1)

                                       Ca  +  Mg
                                           2
where Na,  Ca, and Mg are the concentrations of the respective ions in milli-
equivalents per liter of water.  High SAR (greater than 9) values may adversely
affect the permeability of soils [7],  Other exchangeable cations,  such as
ammonium and potassium, may also react with soils.  High sodium concentra-
tions  in soils can also be toxic to plants, although the effects on permeability
will generally occur first [110].

B.4.f. 3.  Boron — Boron is an essential plant micronutrient but is toxic to
many plants at 1 to 2 mg/1 [96].  In addition to the limited plant uptake, boron
can be removed from solution by adsorption and fixation in the soil in the
presence of iron and aluminum oxides [20], but only to a limited extent [130].
Relative tolerances of various plants to boron are presented in references [27,
37, 176].
                                       28
-------
        Table 3.  RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF
             TRACE ELEMENTS IN IRRIGATION WATERS [I10]a
Element
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
For waters used continuously
on all soil,
mg/1
5.0
0.10
0.10
0.75
0.010
0. 10
0. 050
0.20
1.0
5.0
5.0
2.5b
0.20
0.0 LO
0.20
0. 020
2.0
For use up to 20 years
on fine-textured soils
of pH 6.0 to 8.5,
mg/1
20.0
2.0
0.50
2.0-10.0
0.050
1.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
20.0
10.0
2.5b
10.0
0.050°
2.0
0.020
10.0
a.  These levels will normally not adversely affect plants or soils.  No data are available for
    mercury, silver, tin, titanium, tung;sten.

b.  Recommended maximum concentration for irrigating citrus is 0.075 mg/1.

c.  For only acid fine-textured soils or acid soils with relatively high iron oxide contents.
                                       29
-------
B. 4. g.  Bacteriological Quality

Microorganisms, primarily bacteria, are nprmally present in large quantities
in wastewater. The bulk of these microorganisms can be removed by conven-
tional treatment, and the soil mantle 's quite efficient in the removal of bacteria
and probably viruses through the proposes of filtration and adsorption [40, 43,
44, 77,  78,  143]. Problems may arise, however, in the actual application pro-
cess, especially in  spraying, where F ?rosols could present a health hazard
(I-F. 2. d.).  High degrees of preapplication treatnvnt, including disinfection,
may be necessary, particularly in cases in which public access to the applica-
tion area is allowed.

B. 4. h.  Projected Changes

The possibility of changes in wastewater characteristics should be investigated,
both from the  standpoint of projected future permanent changes and seasonal
variations.  Changes in characteristics may reflect those in water supply and
local industries.  Seasonal variations may be the result of variations in water-
supply characteristics,  domestic use, industrial use, and population fluctuations.
Adverse changes in  wastewater mineral quality may require selection of alter-
nate crops or  changes in loading rates.

B. 4. i.  Industrial Components

Industrial components often present in municipal wastewater normally require
special consideration because of the occurrence of abnormal concentrations of
certain constituents and their influence on the overall wastewater characteris-
tics.  Industries that discharge wastewater into municipal systems should be
studied on the basis of:  existing concentrations, seasonal variations, and ex-
pected changes in the plant process which might affect wastewater characteris-
tics.  Industrial wastewater ordinances, generally designed to prevent discharge
to sewers of elements and compounds in concentrations toxic  to microorganisms,
should be analyzed with regard to limiting the discharge of materials such as
sodium or boron which may be toxic to plants.  Reference should be made to the
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 128).

B. 4. j. BPT Constituents

The proposed  BPT document [3] presents information and criteria on waste
management alternatives for achieving best practicable treatment including
land application, treatment and discharge, and reuse systems.  Where land
application systems discharge to surface waters,  the discharge quality criteria
are the same as for the conventional methods.  Where land-application effluents
result in permanent groundwater, the BPT document sets forth- guidelines for
protection of the groundwater quality which include chemical, pesticide, and
bacteriological constituents.  These guidelines should be consulted for limitations
on any constituents not discussed previously in this section.
                                     30
-------
                                 Section C

                    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SITES


The process of site selection for land-application systems should include an
initial evaluation on the basis of criteria presented in this section.  The environ-
mental setting should be described and the individual site characteristics should
be analyzed. Each site should then be reevaluated in light of considerations of
treatment methods, design, and expected impacts.

C.I.  GENERAL DESCRIPTION

A preliminary step in site evaluation should be a general description of the land
involved.  The environmental setting should be described with emphasis on:

      • The location of the site

      • The relationship to the overall land-use plan

      • The proximity to surface water

      • The number and size of available land parcels

      • Location and use of any existing potable wells (I-C. 2. e. 6).


C.I.a.  Location

The description of site location should include both the distance and elevation
difference from the treatment plant or wastewater collection area.  Both will
affect the feasibility and economics of the transmission of the wastewater to the
site.  Any significant obstructions to transmission, such as rivers, freeways,
or developed residential areas, should be noted.

C. l.b.  Compatibility with Overall Land-Use Plan

Of significant importance in site selection is the compatibility of the intended
use with regional land-use plans.  The regional planners or the planning com-
mission should be consulted as  to the future use of potential sites.

During a visit to the site, the current use,  adjacent land use, and proximity to
areas developed for residential, commercial,  or recreational activities can be
ascertained. On the basis of a review of master plans or discussions with local
planners,  the proposed future use, zoning, and proposed development of the ad-
jacent area  can be determined.
                                   31
-------
C. 1. c.  Proximity to Surface Water

In many cases, the proximity of the potential site to a surface-water body may
be of significance.  For overland flow systems', and systems with underdrains
or pumped withdrawal, discharge of renovated water to a surface-water body
may be necessary.  In such a case, the feasibility and cost of transmission may
become important considerations.  The relationship of surface water to the
overall hydrology of the area,  and particularly to the groundwater, should be
evaluated.  Water-quality aspects and site drainage are considered later in this
section.

C.l.d.  Number and Size of Available Land Parcels

The relative availability of land at potential sites, together with the probable
price per acre, must be defined early in the evaluation.  The number and size
of available parcels will be of  significance, especially in relation to the com-
plexity of land acquisition and  control — a subject that is discussed at the end of
this section.

C.2.  DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

The environmental characteristics of a potential site that may affect the future
selection of a land-application method and the subsequent design of the treat-
ment system include: climate, topography,  soil characteristics, geologic for-
mations, groundwater, and receiving water.  The degree of detail required for
the evaluation  of any one particular characteristic is highly variable and depend-
ent upon the size of the project and the severity of local conditions. This dis-
cussion cannot cover all conceivable aspects,  but the major environmental
factors will be discussed.

C.2.a.  Climate

Local climatic conditions will  affect a large number of design decisions including:
the method of land application, storage requirements, total land requirements,
and loading rates.  The National Weather Service,  local airports,  and univer-
sities are potential  sources of climatological data.  The data base should en-
compass a long enough period  of time so that long-term averages and frequencies
of extreme conditions can be established.  Each of the climatic factors is dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs.

C. 2.a. 1.  Precipitation — Analysis of rainfall data should be conducted with
respect to both quantities and  seasonal distribution.  Quantities should be ex-
pressed in terms of averages,  maximums, and minimums for the period of
record.  A frequency analysis should be made to determine the design annual
precipitation,  which will normally be the maximum precipitation values having
a return period of a given number of years (the wettest year in a given number
                                     32
-------
of years).  The plot of precipitation against return period on probability paper,
a method commonly used to display the results of the frequency analysis,  is
illustrated in Figure 2.  Different return periods may often be used for the
determination of liquid loading rates (I-E. 1. a) and the determination of storage
capacity (I-E. 4.).

In cold regions,  an analysis of the snow conditions with respect to depth and
period of snow cover may also be required.  In most cases,  except for some
infiltration-percolation systems, periods of snow cover will necessitate storage
of the effluent for later application.

C.2.a. 2.  Storm Intensities — An investigation of storm data for the period of
record should be included in the precipitation study.  A frequency analysis
  25
  20
   15
  10
                .10       2.0            10           50  100

                            RETURN PERIOD  IN  YEARS
500
      Figure 2.  Typical frequency analysis for total annual precipitation
                                    33
-------
should be performed to determine the relationship between storm intensity,
duration, and frequencies or return periods.  The design storm event can then
be analyzed for the amount of runoff it would produce and the need for any
runoff control features can be determined.

C. 2. a. 3.  Temperature — Temperature analysis should include the range of
temperatures during the various seasons. Maximum periods of freezing con-
ditions, particularly periods in which the ground is frozen, are of special interest
in determining periods of inoperation.  The effects of temperature are of impor-
tance in the selection of a land-application method, the design of the loading
schedule, and in the determination of storage requirements.  For irrigation of
annual crops, the probable early and late season frost dates need to be
determined.

C. 2. a. 4.  Evapotranspiration — Evapotranspiration is the evaporation of water
from the soil surface and vegetation plus the transpiration of water by plants.
Evapotranspiration rates are dependent upon a number of factors, including
humidity, temperature,  and wind,  and will significantly affect the water balance
in almost all cases.   Typical monthly totals are available in most areas from
the National Weather  Service, nearby reservoirs, the Agricultural Extension
Service, or Agricultural Experiment Stations.

C. 2. a. 5.  Wind ~ Analysis of wind velocity and direction may be required,  and
should contain seasonal variations and frequency of windy conditions.  Wind
analysis is of importance primarily for spray application  systems, where windy
conditions may require large buffer zones or temporary cessation of application.

C.2.b.  Topography

The topography of the site and adjacent land is critical to the design of land-
application systems.  Normally, a detailed topographic map of the area will be
necessary for site selection and the subsequent system design. Topographi j
maps are available from the U. S. Geological Survey. Information to be gained
from an analysis of the topography is listed in the following discussion.

C. 2.b. 1.  Ground  Slope — Ground slope,  usually expressed as a percentage, is
an important site characteristic for the determination of the land treatment
method and application technique.  For example,  the success of an overland
flow system is highly dependent upon ground slope, and irrigation by flooding
normally requires slopes of less than 1 percent.  Foliated hillsides with slopes
of up to 40 percent have been sprayed successfully, with effluent  [140, 142].
Ranges of values for  successful operation are given in Section D.

C. 2.b. 2.  Description of Adjacent Land — The topography of land adjacent to the
potential site should be included in the topographic evaluation. Of primary con-
cern are the effects of storm runoff, both from adjacent land onto the site and
                                    34
-------
from the site onto adjacent lands and surface water bodies.  Also of concern will
be areas downslope from the site where seeps may occur as a result of increased
groundwater levels.

C.2.b.3.   Erosion Potential - The erosion potential of the site and adjacent land
should be predicted, and any required corrective action outlined. Both waste-
water application rates and storm runoff should be considered.   The  typical Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) evaluation of soils includes an analysis of erosion
potential, which is valuable in determing the possible extent of the problem.

C.2.b.4.   Flood Potential - The site topography should be evaluated  and histori-
cal data reviewed to determine the possibility of flooding on the site or adjacent
areas.  Sites prone to flooding,  such as flood plains, may still be suitable for
land application but normally only if the physical equipment is protected and off-
site storage is provided.

C. 2.b. 5.   Extent of Clearing and Field Preparation Necessary — The extent of
clearing and field preparation is largely dependent upon the selection of land-
application method, the application technique, and the existing vegetation. In-
cluded in the evaluation should be:

     • The extent of clearing of existing vegetation (if necessary)

     • Disposition of cleared material

     • Necessary replanting

     • Earthwork required

Some of this information would be developed in detail in the environmental
assessment.

C.2.C.  Soil Characteristics

Soil characteristics are often the most important factors  in selection of both the
site and the land-application method.  Definite requirements for soil character-
istics exist for each of the method alternatives, with overland flow and
infiltration-percolation having the strictest requirements.  Information on soil
characteristics can be obtained  from the Soil Conservation Service, many uni-
versities,  and the Agricultural Extension Service.

C. 2. c. 1.   Type and Description — The soil at the potential site should be de-
scribed in terms of its physical and chemical characteristics.  Important physi-
cal characteristics include texture and structure,  which are largely influenced
by the relative percentages of the mechanical, or particle-size, classes (gravel,
sand, silt, and clay).  Chemical characteristics which may be of importance
are: pH,  salinity, nutrient levels, and adsorption and fixation capabilities for
various inorganic ions.  The following series of tests is suggested:
                                    35
-------
      • pH

      • Salinity or electrical conductivity

      • Organic matter

      • Total exchangeable cations

      • Levels of nitrogen, phosphorus,  potassium,  magnesium, calcium,
        and sodium

      • Percent of the base exchange capacity occupied by sodium, potassium,
        magnesium,  calcium, and hydrogen

Reference is suggested to the  University of California manual for analysis of
soils,  plants, and waters [26].

C. 2.c. 2.  Infiltration and Percolation Potential - The potential of the soil for
both infiltration and percolation is of great importance in the site selection and
selection of application method.  Infiltration, the entry of water into the soil,
is normally expressed as a rate in inches per hour.  The rate generally de-
creases with wetting time and previous moisture content of the soil; conse-
quently, it should be determined under conditions similar to those expected
during operation.  Percolation is the movement of water beneath the ground
surface both vertically and horizontally,  but above the water table. It is normally,
dependent upon several factors,  including soil type; constraints to movement,
such as lenses of elay,  hardpan, or  rock; and degree of soil saturation.  The
limiting rate (either infiltration or percolation) must  be determined and reported
in inch/day (cm/day) or inch/week (cm/week).

The standard percolation test  is not  recommended for determination of infil-
tration or percolation rates.  The test results are not reproducible by different
fieldmen [182] and are affected by hole width,  gravel packing of  holes, depth of
water in holes, and the method of digging the holes.  More importantly, if sub-
surface lenses exist,  the water  in the test hole will move laterally, with the
result being a fairly high percolation rate. Designing a liquid loading rate on
that basis would be disasterous  because, when the entire  field is loaded,  the
only area  for flow is the few feet of depth to the lens times the field perimeter.
Instead of using the percolation  test, it is suggested that several or more of the
following approaches be used as a basis of determining infiltration and  perco-
lation rates: (1) consultation with Agriculture Extension Service agents,  state
or local government soil scientists,  or independent soil specialists; (2) engineer-
ing analysis of several soil borings and soil classifications; (3) engineering
analysis of soil profiles supplied by  the Soil Conservation Service (SCS);  (4)  con-
sultation with county agents, agronomists, or persons having farming experience
with the same, similar, or nearby soils;  and (5)  experience from pilot  studies
on parts of the field to be used.
                                    36
-------
C.2.C.3.  Soil Profile - The soil profile, or relation of soil characteristics to
depth, will normally be required for all site evaluations.  Generally,  the pro-
file should be determined to depths of 2 to 5 feet (0. 61 to 1. 52 m) for overland
flow,  at least 5 feet (1.52 m) for irrigation, and at least 10 feet (3.05 m) for
infiltration-percolation.   The underlying soil layers should be evaluated princi-
pally for their renovation and percolation potentials.  Lenses or constraints to
flow below these levels should be located.

C. 2. c. 4.  Evaluation by Soil Specialists - In most cases, an evaluation by soil
specialists will be necessary to determine the overall suitability of the soil
characteristics for the intended use.  SCS representatives, soil scientists,
agronomists,  and Agricultural Extension  Service representatives are possible
sources to be consulted.

C.2.d.  Geologic Formations

A basic description of the geologic conditions present and their effects should be
required for all site evaluations.  Infiltration-percolation sites and sites with
suspected adverse geological conditions will require a relatively detailed analy-
sis , while considerably less is required for most overland flow sites  and many
irrigation systems. Data on geological formations are available from the U.S.
Geological Survey,  state geology agencies, and occasionally from SCS or U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation publications.

C.2.d. 1.  Type and Description — The geologic formations should be considered
in terms of:  the structure of the bedrock, the depth to bedrock, the lithology,
degree of weathering,  and the presence of any special conditions, such as glacial
deposits.  The presence of any discontinuities,  such as sink holes, fractures or
faults, which may provide short circuits to the  groundwater, should be noted and
thoroughly investigated.   In addition, an evaluation of the potential of the area
for earthquakes and their probable severity will often be of importance to the
future design of the system.

C. 2.d. 2.  Evaluation by Geologists — In many situations,  an evaluation by a
geologist or geohydrologist will be necessary.  The geologist will be of value
both in the investigation of the geologic conditions and in the evaluation of their
effects.  Of primary importance in the evaluation are the effects of the geology
on the percolation of applied wastewater and the movement of groundwater.

C. 2. e.  Groundwater

An investigation of  groundwater must be conducted for  each site, with particular
detail for potential  infiltration-percolation and irrigation sites.  Evaluations
should be made by the engineer to determine both the effect of groundwater levels
on renovation ca  abilities and the effects of the applied wastewater on ground-
water movement and quality with respect to the BPT requirements.
                                     37
-------
C. 2. e. 1.  Depth to Groundwater — The depth to groundwater should be determined
at each site, along with variations throughout the site, and seasonal variations.
Depth to groundwater is important because -it is a measure of the aeration zone
in which renovation of applied wastewater takes place.  Generally, the ground-
water depth requirements are:

      • Overland flow - sufficient depth not to interfere with plant growth

      • Irrigation — at least 5 feet (1.52 m)

      • Infiltration-percolation — preferably 15 feet (4.57 m) or more

Lesser depths may be acceptable where underdrains or pumped withdrawal
systems are utilized.

When several layers of groundwater underlie a particular site, depths should be
determined to  each, unless they are separated by a continuous  impervious
stratum.  The quality and current and planned use of each layer should also
be determined.

C. 2. e. 2.  Groundwater Flow — In most cases,  the groundwater should be evalu-
ated  for direction and rate of flow and for the permeability of the aquifer.  This
evaluation may be unnecessary when percolation is minimal, as with an over-
land  flow and some irrigation systems.  For systems designed for high perco-
lation rates, effects on the groundwater flow must be predicted.

Additionally,  data on aquifer permeability maybe evaluated, together with
groundwater depth data, to predict the extent of the recharge mound.   The di-
rection of flow is important to the design of the monitoring system and should be
traced to determine whether the groundwater will come to the surface, be inter-
cepted by a surface water,  or join another aquifer.

C. 2. e. 3.  Perched Water — Perched water tables are the result of impermeable
or semipermeable layers of rock, clay, or hardpan above the normal water table
and may be seasonal or permanent. Perched water can cause problems for land-
application systems by reducing the effective renovative depth.  Sites should be
investigated both for existing perched water tables and for the potential for de-
velopment of new ones resulting from percolating wastewater.  The effect of
perched water tables should be evaluated, and the possibility of using under-
drains investigated.  A distinction should be made between permanent  ground-
water protected by impermeable strata and perched groundwater above such
strata.

C. 2. e. 4.  Quality Compared to Requirements — The quality of the groundwater
is of great interest, especially in cases in which it is used for  beneficial purposes
or differs substantially from the expected quality of the renovated wastewater.
The existing quality should be determined and compared to quality requirements
for its current or intended use.  The proposed requirements for BPTJJ3J include
limitations for chemical constituents,  pesticide levels,  and bacteriological
quality as discussed in I-B.4.

                                    38
-------
C. 2. e. 5.  Current and Planned Use — Both current and planned use of the ground-
water should be determined,  and the quality requirements for the various uses
detailed.  The distance from the site to the use areas may also be of importance,
because further renovation may occur during lateral movement.

C. 2. e. 6.  Location of Existing Wells — Much of the data required for ground-
water evaluation may be determined through use of existing wells. Wells that
could be used for monitoring should be listed and their relative location described.
Historical data on quality, water levels,  and quantities pumped that may be
available from  the operation of existing wells may be of value.  Such data might
include seasonal groundwater-level variations,  as well as variations over a
period of years.  Logs containing soil data may be available from the drillers
of these wells,  and this information could augment data from soil borings or
geological maps.  It should be noted that much information on private wells can
be obtained only with the owner's consent.  Determining ownership and locating
owners can be difficult and time-consuming.

C. 2. f.  Receiving Water (Other than Groundwater)

Land-application systems in which renovated water is recovered, particularly
overland flow systems, may require discharge into a receiving surface water
body.  Such a discharge would require a permit under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).  If the receiving water is designated
as effluent limited,  the requirements for secondary treatment apply.  If the
receiving water is designated as water-quality limited, pursuant to Section 303
of P.L. 92-500, treatment must be provided consistent with the established
water-quality standards.  Included in the evaluation should be descriptions of:
the type of body (lake, stream, etc.), its current use and water quality, pre-
scribed water-quality standards and effluent limitations, and water-rights
considerations.  Special water-quality requirements and other considerations
may exist when the potential receiving water is an intermittent stream.  The
current use of the water, together with its prescribed water-quality standards,
will determine the degree of treatment necessary by the land-application system.

Water-rights considerations may require that certain quantities of renovated
water be returned to a particular water body, particularly in the western states.
In cases in which a change in method of disposal or point of discharge is contem-
plated,  the state agency of other cognizant authority should be  contacted, and
the status of all existing water rights thoroughly investigated.

C.3.  METHODS OF LAND ACQUISITION OR CONTROL

After potential sites have been selected,  alternative methods of land acquisition
or control should be assessed. Alternative methods include;  (1) outright pur-
chase of land with direct control, (2) appropriate lease of land with direct control,
(3) purchase of land with lease back to farmer for the purpose  of land application,
and (4) contract with user of wastewater.  An appropriate  lease would be one in
which the investment of funds for construction of the land-application system
would be protected  and direct control of the effluent application would be retained
by the municipality or district.


                                     39
-------
The selection of an acquisition and control method is highly dependent on the
selected method of application.  Infiltration-percolation and overland flow sys-
tems normally require a high degree of control and may often be suitable only
if outright purchase of the land is possible.  Because land control requirements
are more flexible for irrigation  systems, the leasing of land to agricultural
users may be possible.  Leasing of required land is often best suited to pilot
studies  and temporary systems.

Grant eligibility has not been considered in the discussion of these methods.
For land acquisition to be eligible for a construction grant, under P. L. 92-500,
the land must be an integral part of the treatment process or is  to be used
for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treatment.
                                     40
-------
                               Section D

      CONSIDERATION OF LAND-APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES
On the basis of the project objectives and the characteristics of the selected
potential sites, various methods of land application should be considered.
Alternatives can be classified into three main groups:  irrigation, infiltration-
percolation,  and overland flow or spray-runoff.  These alternatives differ
considerably, with respect to both use for different objectives and require-
ments for site characteristics.   Each method is shown schematically in Figure
3.  The various possible uses for land-application approaches following some
initial treatment are compared in Table 4.  These objectives should then be
related to the project objectives  (I-A).   Site characteristics discussed in the
previous section that affect alternative  selection will be briefly related to
each of the three alternatives in the following presentation.
       Table 4.  COMPARISON OF IRRIGATION, OVERLAND FLOW,
  AND INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Objective
Use as a treatment process with
a recovery of renovated water11
Use for treatment beyond
secondary:
1. For BODg and suspended
solids removal
2. For nitrogen removal
3. For phosphorus removal
Use to grow crops for sale
Use as direct recycle to the
land
Use to recharge groundwater
Use in cold climates

Irrigation
0-70%
recovery


984%

85+%b
80-99%
Excellent
Complete

0-70%
Fairc
Type of approach
Overland flow
50 to 80%
recovery


92+%

70-90%
40-80%
Fair
Partial

0-10%
_ _d

Infiltration-
percolation
Up to 97%
recovery


85-99%

0-50%
60-95%
Poor
Complete

Up to 97%
Excellent
  a.  Percentage of applied water recovered depends upon recovery technique and the
     climate.
  b.  Dependent upon crop uptake.
  c.  Conflicting data—woods irrigation acceptable, cropland irrigation marginal.

  d.  Insufficient data.
                                     41
-------
                            EVAPORATION
SPRAY OR
SURFACE
APPLICATION
ROOT  ZONE
SUBSOIL
                                                         SLOPE
                                                         VARIABLE
                                                                 -DEEP
                                                                  PERCOLATION
                               (a)  IRRIGATION
                              EVAPORATION
  SPRAY APPLICATION
  SLOPE 2-4«
                                        GRASS AND VEGETATIVE  LITTER
                                                                   RUNOFF
                                                                   COLLECTION
                               (b)  OVERLAND FLOW
                                               SPRAY OR
                                               SURFACE APPLICATION
                                               PERCOLATION THROUGH
                                               UNSATURATED ZONE
                                                              NEW WATER TABLE
I'^^^fi^^^SfK

               (c)  INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION


            Figure 3.  Methods of land application
                                                               OLD WATER TABLE
                                                                             _y
                                       42
-------
D. 1. IRRIGATION

The most common method of treatment by land application is irrigation.  It is
the controlled discharge of effluent,  by spraying or surface spreading,  onto
land to support plant growth.  The wastewater is "lost" to plant uptake, to
air by evapotranspiration, and to groundwater by percolation.  Liquid loading
rates up to 4 inches (10.2 cm) per week on a seasonal basis and 8 feet (2.44 m)
per year on an annual basis are in this category.  Systems with liquid loading
rates exceeding these (other than overland flow) are normally considered to be
of the infiltration-percolation type.

The range of suitable site characteristics for irrigation systems is wide.  The
major criteria generally considered preferable are as follows:

      •  Climate -warm-to-arid climates are  preferable, but more severe
         climates are acceptable if adequate storage is provided for wet or
         freezing conditions.

      •  Topography - slopes up to 15 percent for crop irrigation are accept-
         able provided runoff or erosion is controlled.

      •  Soil type ~ loamy soils are preferable, but most soils from  sandy
         loams to clay loams are suitable.

      •  Soil drainage — well-drained soil is preferable, however, more
         poorly drained soils may be suitable if drainage features are included
         in the design.

      •  Soil depth - uniformly 5 to 6 feet (1.52 to 1.83 m) or more through-
         out sites is preferred for root development and wastewater renovation.

      •  Geologic formations — lack of major discontinuities that provide short
         circuits to the groundwater is necessary.

      •  Groundwater - minimum depth of 5 feet (1.52 m) to groundwater is
         normally necessary to maintain  aerobic conditions, provide necessary
         renovation, and prevent surface waterlogging.  May be obtained by under-
         drains or  groundwater pumping.

D. 1. a. Purpose of  Irrigation

The suitability of a particular site,  a particular effluent, and the future design
 of the system will  depend, to a large degree, on the intended purpose of irriga-
tion.  Three distinct purposes have been identified.
                                   43
-------
      • Optimization of crop yields

      • Maximization of effluent application

      • Landscape irrigation

Each purpose is defined and major design considerations are introduced in the
material that follows:
D. 1. a. 1.  Optimization of Crop ^elds - Irrigation systems designed for this
purpose are often used in situations in which effluent is offered to farmers for
their own use.  The application ra\e for the effluent is based only on the needs
of the crop; normally, no more effluent is applied than is necessary for opti-
mum crop yield.  Relatively wide variations in application rates usually occur
as a result of seasonal variations in crop moisture demand and seasonal
precipitation. Consequently, total land and storage requirements may be
relatively high.  Operation without purchase of land for irrigation may be
possible through contracts  with users of the wastewater.

D. 1. a. 2.  Maximization of Effluent Application - In irrigation systems  designed
for maximum effluent application, considerably higher loading rates may be
used than are required for  crop growth.  Crops of lesser economic value may
be chosen on the basis of their water tolerance, nutrient uptake,  or tolerance
to certain wastewater constituents. Greater amounts of percolation may also
be planned for, as design liquid loading rates will exceed the plant
requirements.

Forestland irrigation systems can also be designed for maximum effluent
application.  The greater suitability of forestland to cold-weather operation
may result in a more evenly distributed loading schedule and can reduce
storage requirements.  However, the long-range nutrient removal capabilities
of forest systems are generally less than for most field crops.

Forestland irrigation can result in the succession of water -tolerance species  in
place of naturally occurring vegetation.  This occurrence should be considered
in the environmental assessment.

D. 1 . a. 3.  Landscape Irrigation — Irrigation of turf, especially in recreational
areas, such as parks and golf courses, requires special consideration.  The
condition of the turf is normally of primary importance, and application rates
must be adjusted for this purpose.  Public health considerations are also of
great importance, with high degrees of treatment prior to application,  includ-
ing disinfection, normally being required.  Additional measures, such  as
irrigation during off -hours, are often necessary.
                                      44
-------
D. l.b.  Application Techniques

Three application techniques are employed in irrigation systems (Figure 4):

      •  Spraying

      •  Ridge and furrow

      •  Flooding

Topography, soil conditions, weather conditions,  agricultural practice, and
economics are factors to be considered in technique selection.  General
design features for each technique are described in reference [125, 184].

D. l.b. 1.  Spraying - Spraying involves the application of effluent above the
ground either through nozzles or sprinkler heads.  Other elements of the
system include: pumps or a source of pressure,  supply mains, laterals, and
risers.  Design of a system can be quite variable; it can be portable or per-
manent,  moving or stationary.  Spray systems are the most efficient for
uniform flow distribution, but such systems are also generally the most expen-
sive.  High wind, a problem common to spray irrigation systems, adversely
affects efficiency of distribution and can also  spread aerosol mists.  Hydraulic
design factors for spraying systems are included  in references  [114, 115, 155].

D. l.b. 2  Ridge and Furrow - Ridge and furrow irrigation is accomplished by
gravity flow of effluent through furrows, from which it seeps into the ground.
Utilization of this technique is generally restricted to relatively flat land, and
extensive preparation of the ground is required.   The operating cost is rela-
tively low,  and the technique is well suited to certain row crops.  Uniformity
of distribution, however, is fairly difficult to maintain unless the grading of
the land  is nearly perfect [184].

D. l.b. 3.  Flooding- Irrigation by flooding is accomplished by inundation of the
land with several inches of  effluent.  Descriptions of the various flooding
techniques are contained in Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Applica-
tion [125].  The choice of crop is critical because it must be able to withstand
periods of inundation with the technique.  The depth of applied effluent and
period of flooding are dependent upon the characteristics of the  soil and the
crop grown.

D. 2.  INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION

In this form of treatment, wastewater may be applied to the soil by spreading
or spraying.  Renovation is achieved as the effluent travels through the soil
matrix by natural physical,  chemical, and biological processes.  Effluent is
allowed to infiltrate at a relatively high rate,  and consequently less land is
required for the same volume than for the two other alternatives.  The major
                                     45
-------
                               RA-1N  DROP ACTION-
                 (»w»*i.
                                     S~x
i       i  i  nu           i
                (a)  SPRINKLER
                                 COMPLETELY FLOODED-
                 (b)  FLOODING
                 (c) RIDGE  AND  FURROW
            Figure 4.  Irrigation techniques
                            46
-------
portion of the wastewater percolates to the groundwater, while most of the
remainder is lost through evaporation.

Important criteria for site selection include:  geologic conditions, soil con-
ditions, and groundwater depth and movement.  Because of the high rates of
loading, the geologic conditions and status of the groundwater are relatively
more important than in irrigation or overland flow systems.

Thomas recommends that a depth of 15 feet (4.55 m) from the surface to the
natural groundwater be considered a minimum [166] ,  and Bouwer recommends
that the groundwater recharge mound should not be allowed to rise closer to
the soil surface than a distance of about 4 feet (1.22 m) [19].  Lesser depths
may be suitable under special conditions; however, a lesser degree of reno-
vation becomes much more probable. The use of an artificial drainage system,
such as pumped withdrawal, should be considered as a means for increasing
groundwater depths.

Well-drained soil is critical to the success of an infiltration-percolation sys-
tem.  Acceptable  soils include sand, sandy loams, loamy sands, and gravels.
Very  coarse sand and gravel  are not ideal because they allow wastewater to
pass too rapidly through the first few feet where the major biological and
chemical action takes place [125].  Consideration should be given to the infil-
tration surface, which may be planted, overlain with graded sand or gravel,  or
left plain.  Seasonal variations in temperature and precipitation should also be
considered in determining application rates.

D. 2. a.  Purpose of Infiltration-Percolation

Wastewater treatment systems employing infiltration-per eolation may  be de-
signed for three purposes:  groundwater recharge; recovery of renovated water,
using wells or underdrains; and interception of renovated water by a surface
water body.

D. 2.a. 1.  Groundwater Recharge —  In systems designed for this purpose,  all of
the infiltrated wastewater is allowed to percolate directly to the groundwater.
A mound in the water table will be created under the infiltration area,  conse-
quently reducing the renovative distance.  Groundwater recharge may be used
for improving poor groundwater quality, for limiting salt-water intrusion,  or
merely as an efficient method for treatment and disposal of wastewater.

For the renovated water, the quality requirements for groundwater are given
in the BPT document [3].  The potential for meeting these guidelines depends
upon the soil characteristics,  loading rates and cycles, management techniques,
and wastewater characteristics (I-B.4).

D. 2. a. 2.  Pumped Withdrawal — In cases in which the BPT requirements
cannot be met or the groundwater is  of poor quality, renovated water may be
directly withdrawn from the zone of saturation for reuse.  Additionally,
pumping from wells, or a system of underdrains,  can be used to reduce the
extent of the recharge mound in the water table, thereby increasing renovation
distance.


                                    47
-------
D. 2. a. 3.  Interception by Surface Water — Infiltration-percolation systems may
be designed for situations in which the renovated water moves vertically and
laterally and is subsequently intercepted by a surface water body. This consti-
tutes an indirect discharge to the surface-water body.

D. 2.b.  Application Techniques

Spreading and spraying are two application techniques that are suitable for
infiltration-percolation.  Factors which should be considered in the  selection of
the application technique include:  soil conditions, topography, climate, and
economics.

D. 2.b. 1.  Spreading - Infiltration-percolation by means of spreading is perhaps
the simplest of the land-application techniques. It is also the technique least
affected by cold or wet weather.  Several basins are normally used  and periods
of flooding are alternated with  periods of  drying.  Application using  the ridge
and furrow technique has also been accomplished  [125],

D. 2. b. 2.  Spraying - Application of effluent at high rates employing spraying
has been accomplished. High-rate spray irrigation systems, where the loading
rate exceeds 4 inches (10.2 cm) per week,  are included in this category.  Nor-
mally,  vegetation is necessary to protect the surface of the soil  and to preclude
runoff.  Hydrophytic or water-tolerant grasses are usually chosen.  Spraying
of forestland may also be considered for infiltration-percolation.

D. 3.  OVERLAND FLOW

Wastewater treatment by this method has been practiced primarily by food-
processing industries,  but  it appears quite suitable,  under certain conditions,
for municipal wastewater.  It is nevertheless still in the experimental stage
with regard to municipal systems in this country at this time.

Renovation is accomplished by physical, chemical, and biological means as
wastewater flows through vegetation on a sloped surface.  Wastewater is
sprayed over the upper reaches of the slopes and a high percentage  of the
treated water is collected as runoff at the bottom of the slope, with  the remain-
der being lost to evapotranspiration and percolation.  Important criteria for site
selection include:  soil conditions, topography, and climate; with the most im-
portant being soil conditions.  Soils with  minimal infiltration capacity, such as
heavy clays, clay loams, or soils underlain by. impermeable lenses, are re-
quired for this method to be effective.  Soils with good drainage characteristics
are best suited for other land-application methods [125].

 A mantle of 6 to 8 inches (15. 2 to 20.3 cm) of good topsoil is recommended
 [130]. A sloping terrain is necessary to allow the applied wastewater to flow
slowly over the soil surface to the runoff collection system.  Slope  distance is
a function of the  spray diameter,  loading rate,  and degree of renovation
                                     48
-------
required.  The degree of slope depends on the existing topography and the eco-
nomics of earthwork; however, slopes  of 2 to 4 percent are preferred.

D. 3.a. Purpose of Overland Flow

The purpose of the overland flow system, and the intended disposition of its
renovated water, will affect both the site selection and the design of the system.

D. 3.a. 1^ Discharge to Surface Waters — Collected runoff from most overland
flow systems is discharged to surface waters. Renovated water is collected at
the toe of the slope in cutoff ditches or by similar means and channeled to a
monitoring point before being discharged. The proximity of the site to a re-
ceiving water body and the method of transmission of renovated water to the
discharge point should be considered in the design of such a system.

For a surface water discharge the renovated water must meet the minimum of
secondary treatment requirements or effluent limitations based on water-quality
standards. As shown in Tables 4 and 12  (II-D), the system is capable of a high
degree of treatment.  To meet the fecal coliform standards, however, disinfec-
tion of the collected water may be necessary.

D.3.a.2.  Reuse of Collected Runoff — Although largely untried, treated water
from overland flow may be utilized by industry for irrigation or in recreational
impoundments.  Storage may be necessary if continuous use is not possible.
Overland flow systems designed for this purpose may be desirable in certain
water-short areas and at sites where transmission of runoff to a receiving
surface water body is impractical or uneconomical.

D. 3. b. Application Techniques

Spraying is the application technique used most commonly for overland flow
systems.  Flooding between borders has been used in Melbourne, Australia [76]
but only for 6 months of the year.  Factors that should be considered in the
selection of the application technique include: topography, suspended solid's
in  the wastewater,  agricultural practices, and economics.

D.S.b.l.  Spraying — Spraying is the only application technique presently prac-
ticed in this country.  Wastewater is applied on the upper reaches of the slope
and is  allowed to flow downhill.  Spraying may be accomplished by means of
fixed sprinklers or rotating boom-type  sprays.

D.3.b.2.  Flooding — Application by flooding or other surface  techniques in
overland flow systems has not been demonstrated in this country, but it has
been practiced successfully in Melbourne, Australia.  If high concentrations of
suspended solids are present, settling in the upper reaches may cause an odor
problem.  Because uniform distribution is critical,  flooding may not be suc-
cessful unless care is taken to produce an extremely smooth terrace with no
cross slope.
                                    49
-------
D.4.  COMBINATIONS OF TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Wastewater treatment systems must often be designed to meet a wide variety
of demands under an equally wide variety of conditions.  Land application
offers possibilities of various combinations of techniques that may be useful in
the solution of a particular treatment problem.  Combinations may include
either several land-application techniques or land application together with
in-plant treatment.  Increased felxibility of the overall system and increased
complexity of operation are side effects of treatment combinations which
should be considered.

D.4.a.  Combinations of Land-Application Techniques

Combinations of land-application techniques may be desirable when dealing
with problems of differences in site characteristics (either within one large
site or between a number of sites),  seasonal weather variations, or impact
minimization on a particular area.  They may also be useful in adapting land
application to present land use; for instance, using a portion of the wastewater
to irrigate an existing golf course.

D.4.b.  Combinations with Ih-Plant Treatment

Combinations of land application with in-plant treatment and receiving water
discharge may be advantageous in certain situations, especially if operating
costs of in-plant treatment are high. The most obvious advantages of this
type of combination can be seen in cold-weather regions where large storage
requirements may make land application an undesirable alternative.  Partial
in-plant treatment could be used prior to land application in summer months,
with full  in-plant treatment and surface water discharge used in the  winter
months [l30j .  Combinations for other purposes may be worth investigating.
Stormwater storage or treatment systems may also be integrated into
combined wastewater management systems.

D.5.  COMPATIBILITY WITH SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The success of a land-application system will depend upon the compatibility of
the selected treatment  alternative to the project objectives, climate, and site
characteristics.  To ensure compatibility, it is necessary to reevaluate the
alternative selection by proceeding stepwise through the  flow chart.  (Figure 1
in the Introduction), reviewing each consideration.
                                    50
-------
                                   Section E
                          DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS


Design considerations will differ greatly depending on whether irrigation,
infiltration-percolation, or overland flow is selected.  The major considerations,
which are discussed in this section, include:

     •   Loading rates

     •   Land requirements

     •   Crop selection

     •   Storage requirements

     •   Preapplication treatment requirements

     •   Management considerations

     •   Flexibility

     •   Design reliability

The key issues involved in delineation of these design factors are identified and
discussed.

E. 1.  LOADING RATES

To determine what characteristics of the wastewater will be limiting, balances
should be made for water, nitrogen,  phosphorus, organic matter, or other con-
stituents of abnormally high concentration (as determined under I-B.4).  On
the basis of those balances, a loading rate can be established for each parameter.
Each loading rate should then be used in calculating the required land area and
the critical loading rate is the one requiring the largest field area.

E. 1. a.   Liquid Loading/Water Balance

The elements considered in a water balance are:

     •   Effluent applied

     •   Precipitation

     •   Evapotranspiration
                                     51
-------
      •  Percolation

      •  Runoff

The interrelationships between the elements of the water balance for irrigation,
infiltration-percolation,  and overland flow are discussed in the following
subsections.

Irrigation — For irrigation systems, the amount of effluent applied plus precipita-
tion should equal the evapotranspiration plus a limited amount of percolation.  In
most  cases,  surface runoff from fields irrigated with municipal effluent will not
be allowed or must be controlled. The water balance will be:


                       + fppHe? =  Evapotranspiration + Percolation              (2)


Seasonal variations in each of the above values should be taken into account.  It is
suggested that this be done by means of evaluating the water balance for each
month as well as the annual balance.  This method is illustrated in Example  No. 1.

The value for design precipitation should be determined on the basis of a frequency
analysis of wetter than normal years (I-C. 2. a. 1.).  The wettest year in 10 is sug-
gested as reasonable in most cases; however, it is prudent to check the water
balance using the range of precipitation amounts that may be encountered.  For
purposes of evaluating monthly water balances,  the design annual precipitation
can often be distributed over the  year by means of the average distribution, which
is the average percentage of the total annual precipitation that occurs in each
month.  Again, the range of monthly values that may be encountered should be
analyzed, especially for the months when the storage reservoir is full.

Evapotranspiration will also vary from month to month, however, the  total for the
year should be relatively constant.  The amount of water lost to evapotranspiration
each month should be entered  in Equation 2.

Percolation includes that portion of the water, which after infiltration  into the
soil, flows through the root zone and eventually becomes part of the groundwater.
The percolation rate used in the design should be determined on the basis of  a
number of factors (I-C. 2. c. 2.) including:  soil characteristics, underlying geo-
logic conditions,  groundwater conditions, and the length of drying period required
for satisfactory crop growth and wastewater renovation. The actual percolation
rate will vary with soil temperature throughout the year; however, for design
purposes, it is often possible  to assume a constant rate.

When irrigating in arid climates, it is necessary to  remove the salts that accumu-
late in the root zone as a result of evaporation.  Some amount of percolation is
necessary to accomplish this leaching.  Ayers [7] has calculated the leaching
requirements for various crops,  depending upon crop tolerances (I-E.3.) and
                                     52
-------
total dissolved solids in the effluent.  King and Hanks [75] have investigated the
possibility of controlling the quality of return flows by varying the timing of irri-
gation applications and have developed a mathematical model that may prove
valuable for situations in which TDS control is necessary.

            EXAMPLE  No. 1 —  Determine the water balance for an
                                 irrigation system.

      Assumptions

      1.   The design precipitation is  for the wettest year in 10,  with average
          monthly distribution.

      2.   Average monthly evapotranspiration rates are  used; these are derived
          from the Agricultural Extension Service.

      3.   The site is mostly flat and level.

      4.   The soil is a deep sandy loam.

      5.   The crop is coastal Bermuda grass.

      6.   Storage will be provided for a portion of the flow during the winter.

      7.   Runoff, if  any, will be collected and stored  for reapplication.

      Solution — Computations and results are presented in Table 5.

      1.   From a curve similar to Figure 2, the design annual precipitation for
          the wettest year in 10  is found to be 13 in. (33. 0 cm).  The precipita-
          tion is distributed over the year on the basis of average distribution and
          entered into Column 5 in Table 5.

      2.   Average monthly evapotranspiration rates are  entered into Table 5 in
          Column 2.

      3.   On the basis of soil and geological evaluations, the design percolation
          rate is determined to be 10  in. /mo (25 cm/mo) and entered into Col-
          umn 3.  The total water losses are determined by adding Columns 2 and
          3 and entering the sum in Column 4.

      4.   Using Equation 2, the design precipitation is subtracted  from the total
          water losses to determine the amount of effluent to be  applied (Column 6).
                                     53
-------
             Table 5.  WATER BALANCE FOR EXAMPLE NO. 1
Water losses
Evapo-
transpiration,
Month in.
(1) (2)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
annual
0.7
1.5
3.1
3.9
5.2
6.5
7.0
6.5
4.4
3.9
1.5
0.8
45.0
Percolation,
in.
(3)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
120.0
Total,
in.
(2) + (3) =
(4)
10.7
11.5
13.1
13.9
15.2
16.5
17.0
16.5
14.4
13.9
11.5
10.8
165.0
Water applied
Precipitation,
in.
(5)
2.3
2.3
2.1
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
Trace
0.2
0.6
1.0
2.2
13.0
Effluent
applied,
in.
(4) - (5) =
(6)
8.4
9.2
11.0
12.3
14.8
16.3
16.9
16.5
14.2
13.3
10.5
8.6
152.0
Total,
in.
(5) -i- (6) =
(7)
10.7
11.5
13.1
13.9
15.2
16.5
17.0
16.5
14.4
13.9
11.5
10.8
165.0
 Note: 1 inch =2.54 cm
Comments

1.  The maximum application of effluent will be less than 4 in. /wk (10 cm/wk)
    and will occur in July.

2.  If the effluent available equals effluent applied on a yearly basis, then
    152 in./yr divided by 12 months/yr equals 12. 7 inches of effluent would be
    available each month (see Example No. 3).

3.  Storage would be required for a portion of the flow for each month in which
    the effluent available exceeded the effluent applied.  In this case,  storage
    would be required  from approximately mid November to mid April.

4.  The annual liquid loading of 152 inches (386 cm) would place this land-
    application system above the normal loading range for irrigation of 24 to
    96 in./yr (61 to 244  cm/yr).

5.  The results obtained from this process would be utilized in the determi-
    nation of land requirements (I-E.2.) and  storage requirements (I-E.4.).
                                      54
-------
Infiltration-Percolation — The elements of the water balance for infiltration-
percolation systems are the same as for irrigation (see Equation 2).  Direct
runoff is not designed into such systems.

For low-rate applications involving evaporation-percolation ponds, evaporation
from the pond surface will be a significant factor.  For these systems, the applied
effluent should balance the net evaporation (total evaporation minus precipitation)
plus the estimated percolation rate under saturated conditions.  Saturated condi-
tions should be used because normally the soil surface is constantly inundated,
and the infiltration rate becomes significantly reduced over time.  This reduced
infiltration rate subsequently limits the movement of water through the soil.

For higher rate systems and systems with intermittent applications,  percolation
is the major factor, with evaporation accounting for 10 percent or less of the
effluent applied.  Precipitation is significant in humid climates and is analyzed in
the same manner as irrigation, using a frequency analysis of the available data.
In arid climates, the precipitation should not be omitted, because it often all oc-
curs in a few winter months.

Overland Flow — Typical loading rates range from 0.25 to 0.7 in./day
(0.64 to 1.78 cm/day) [125].   For year-round operation, the corresponding
amount of effluent applied would range from 8 to 20 ft/yr (2.44 m to 6.10 m/yr).
The water balance should be  made mainly to determine the amount of runoff to
be expected.   The water balance equation for overland flow is:


            Design      + Effluent  „ Evapo-      + Percolation + Runoff           (3)
            precipitation   applied    transpiration

Design precipitation and evapotranspiration values are determined in the same
manner as for irrigation systems.  Losses to percolation will generally be in the
order of 0.1 in. /day (0.3 cm/day) or less.  Percolation rates should be estimated
under saturated or nearly saturated conditions.  The runoff rate can be deter-
mined as the known values are entered into Equation 3.  A typical range of runoff
values is from 40 percent (of the applied effluent plus precipitation) in the summer
to 80 percent  in the winter [32, 56,  85].

E. l.b.  Nitrogen Mass Balance

A total nitrogen balance is almost as important as a water balance, because
nitrate ions are mobile in the soil and can affect the quality of the receiving
water.  On an annual basis,  the applied nitrogen must be accounted for in crop
uptake, denitrification, volatilization, addition  to groundwater or surface water,
or storage in  the soil.
                                     55
-------
E. l.b. 1.  Total Annual Load — The total nitrogen load is necessary because all
forms - organic, ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite — interact in the soil.  The
total nitrogen loading will be:


                                         N = 2.7CL                       (4)


                 where

                   N  - annual nitrogen loading, Ib/acre/yr
                   C  = total nitrogen concentration, mg/1
                   L  = annual liquid loading, ft/yr
                 or:
                                         N  = 0.1CL                        (5)
                 where
                   N  = annual nitrogen loading kg/ha/yr
                   C  = total nitrogen concentration, mg/1
                   L  = annual liquid loading, cm/yr
E. l.b. 2.  Total Annual Crop Uptake — The nitrogen uptake of most crops has been
determined from greenhouse and field studies using fresh water for irrigation.
Typical uptake values are given in Table 6.   It should be noted that nitrogen up-
take values may be higher when wastewater is applied instead of fresh water only
because  more nitrogen is available.

For land-application systems,  few nitrogen uptake values for crops currently
exist.  It is expected that definitive values will be established in the near future.
Nitrogen uptakes for plants not listed in Table 6 can generally be obtained from
Agricultural Extension Service agents.

When more than one crop per year is grown on one field, the total nitrogen uptake
for the entire year should be determined. Nitrogen removal by crop uptake is a
function  of crop yield and requires the harvesting and physical removal of the
crop to be  effective.

E. l.b.3.  Denitrification and Volatilization - The extent of denitrification and
volatilization depends on the loading rate and characteristics of the wastewater to
be applied,  and the microbiological conditions in the active zones of the soil.

Volatilization of ammonia will not be significant for effluents with a pH less than
7 or for  nitrified effluents.  For irrigation systems, denitrification is generally
                                       56
-------
        Table 6.  TYPICAL VALUES OF CROP UPTAKES OF NITROGEN
Crop
Alfalfa
Red clover
Sweet clover
Coastal Bermuda grass
Corn
Cotton
Fescue
Milo maize
Reed canary grass
Soybeans
Wheat
Nitrogen
uptake,
Ib/acre/yr
155-220
77-126
158
480-600
155
66-100
275
81
226-359
94-113
50-76
References
54
54, 1
1
127
54
1, 30
1
1
32, 1
54, 1
54, 1
                 Note: 1 Ib/acre/yr = 1.12 kg/ha/yr
of minor importance, depending upon the soil, the application rate, and the crop.
Hunt [67] suggests that denitrification may be a significant nitrogen removal
mechanism for overland flow systems because observed removals cannot be
accounted for solely by crop uptake.

For high-rate  infiltration-percolation systems, denitrification is the only signifi-
cant mechanism of nitrogen removal from the system.  By managing the hydraulic
loading cycle to create alternately anaerobic and aerobic conditions, Bouwer [20]
obtained up to  80-percent nitrogen removal as a combined  result of ammonia
adsorption and denitrification during most of the period of  inundation.  Over a
4-year period  the calculated removal was 30 percent at a loading rate of
21,000 Ib/acre/yr  (23,450 kg/ha/yr).  Without special management techniques,
overall nitrogen removal may only be 10 percent or less [82, 97].

E.l.b.4.  Addition to Groundwater or Surface Water — The soil mantle cannot
hold nitrogen indefinitely, although organic nitrogen can be stored in the soil
to a certain extent.  The ammonium and organic nitrogen is ultimately converted
to nitrate nitrogen, which can leach out of the soil.  Unless nitrogen is taken
up by crops and physically removed by harvesting, or the nitrates are converted
to nitrogen gas by  denitrification, the nitrogen will appear eventually in the
runoff or percolate.
                                    57
-------
 E. 1. c.  Phosphorus Mass Balance

 Phosphorus is removed from percolating wastewater by fixation and chemical
 precipitation.  For irrigation,  the phosphorus loading will usually be well below
 the capacity of the soil to fix and precipitate the phosphorus.  Typically,  less
 than 20 percent of the phosphorus applied is utilized by the crop and the remainder
 stays in the topsoil [I30l.   Soil column tests are frequently conducted to deter-
 mine the fixation capacities of the soil; however, the results of these tests should
 be used with caution because long-term behavior and the effects of time cannot be
 duplicated in a short-term test.

 For overland flow systems, the removal mechanisms for phosphorus are crop
 uptake, microbial uptake,  and  fixation by the soil.  Because only a small portion
 of the effluent applied infiltrates into the soil and crop uptake is small, removal
 efficiencies are generally low, ranging reportedly from 35 percent at Melbourne,
 Australia [76],  to 50 percent at Ada, Oklahoma [1641. For infiltration-
 percolation systems,  fixation and chemical precipitation in the soil are respon-
 sible for phosphorus  removal.   As with irrigation,  the capacity of the soil to
 remove phosphorus can be estimated from laboratory tests.   This capacity can be
 quite high even for sandy soils with  relatively low fixation capacities.  Bouwer
 [21] reports 95 percent removal after 200 feet (61.0  m) of travel at a loading of
 21,000 Ib/acre/yr (23,450 kg/ha/yr).

 E. l.d.  Organic Loading Rates

 The average daily organic loading rate should be calculated from the liquid loading
 rate and the BOD concentration of the applied effluent. Thomas [163, 165]  has
 estimated that between 10 and 25 Ib/acre/day (11.2 and 28.0 kg/ha/day) are
 needed to maintain a static organic-matter content in the soil. Additions of
 organic matter at these rates help to maintain the tilth of the soil,  replenish the
 carbon oxidized by microorganisms, and would not be expected to pose problems
 of soil  clogging.  Higher loading rates can be managed, depending upon the type of
 system and the resting period.

 Irrigation - Using the range of 10 to 25 Ib/acre/day (11.2 to 28.0 kg/ha/day) of
 BOD as a reference,  the addition of 2 Ib/acre/day (2. 2 kg/ha/day) or less from
 a typical secondary effluent applied  for irrigation will certainly not pose  a prob-
 lem of organic buildup in the soil.  When primary effluent is used, organic load-
 ing rates may exceed 20 Ib/acre/day (22.4 kg/ha/day) without causing problems
 [125].

 Resting periods are standard with most irrigation techniques. These periods
 give soil bacteria time to break down organic matter and allow the water to drain
 from the top few inches.  Aerobic conditions are thus restored as air penetrates
 into the soil. Resting periods for spray irrigation may range from less than a
 day to 14 days,  with 5 to 10 days being common [65].  The resting period for sur-
 face irrigation can be as long as 6 weeks but is usually between 6 and 14  days
 [130].  The  resting period  depends upon the crop, the number of individual plots.
'in the rotation cycle,  and management considerations.
                                      58
-------
Infiltration-Percolation - Organic loading is an important criterion for infiltration
systems, because it is related to the development of anaerobic conditions.  To
meet the oxygen demand created by the decomposing organic and nitrogenous
material, an intermittent loading schedule is- required.  This allows air to pene-
trate the soil and supplies oxygen to the bacteria that oxidize the organic matter
and ammonium.

Bouwer [20] reports BOD loadings of 45 Ib/acre/day  (50.4 kg/ha/day) using sec-
ondary effluent and a liquid loading of 300 ft/yr (91.4 m/yr).  The application
cycle consisted of loading for 14 days, followed by 10 days of resting in the sum-
mer and 20 days of resting in the winter.  Additional  information on loading rates
and resting periods may be found in Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land
Application [125].

Industrial wastes have been loaded successfully on infiltration-percolation sys-
tems at 150 Ib/acre/day (168.1 kg/ha/day) of BOD [125]. Thomas [165] reports
BOD loadings of 166 Ib/acre/day (186.1 kg/ha/day) of septic tank effluent with
organic residues in the soil of less than 16 Ib/acre/day (17. 9 kg/ha/day).  He
reports that this high loading can be used on sandy soils for extended periods
without resulting in the detrimental accumulation of organic residues in the soil,
and that during a 10-year period of operation,  organic residues in the soil would
increase by no more than 3 percent of the weight of the top 6 inches (15. 2 cm) of
good mineral soil.

Overland Flow - The limits of organic loading for the overland flow method are at
present undefined.  High-strength organic wastes have been treated at BOD load-
ings of 40 to 100 Ib/acre/day (44. 8 to 112 kg/ha/day)  fl25].  Kirby [76] reports
that the grass filtration system at Melbourne,  Australia, is loaded at 68 lb/acre/
day (76. 2 kg/ha/day) of BOD with a 96-percent removal efficiency.  Thomas [164]
reports 92- to 95-percent removal of BOD at loadings of 14 to 18 Ib/acre/day
(15. 7 to 20. 2 kg/ha/day) with higher removals observed at the higher organic and
liquid loading rates. Higher organic loading rates can probably be used.

Because the organic matter is filtered  out by the  grass, litter, and topsoil,- and
is reduced by biological oxidation, the  organic content of the soil is not affected
substantially.

However, high organic loadings may limit treatment efficiency as  a result of the
combination of effects of BOD and liquid loading on the creation of anaerobic con-
ditions.  Because overland flow functions in a manner similar to a trickling filter,
intermittent dosing has been  used successfully with 6  to .8 hours on and 6 to 18
hours off [125].  In Australia, continuous dosing  has been used for up to 6 months
with the remaining 6 months  for resting [76],  Provisions should be  made to vary
the resting period, depending on climatic conditions,  harvesting requirements,
and insect control considerations.
                                     59
-------
E. 1. e .Loadings of Other Constituents — Suspended and dissolved solids are the
two major types of remaining constituents of-interest for land-application sys-
tems.  Effects of these constituents vary with the type of system.

Large concentrations of suspended solids can clog the  components of the distri-
bution system and reduce the infiltration rate into the soil.  As a result, pre-
application treatment for suspended solids reduction may be necessary (see
I-E. 5).   The organic fraction of the suspended solids when applied to the land is
degraded as described previously for BOD.  The inorganic or mineral fraction of
the suspended solids is filtered out and becomes incorporated into the  soil.

Dissolved solids in wastewater may be classified by the extent of their movement
through the soil.  Chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, and bicarbonates move relatively
easily through most soils with the percolating water. These compounds can
therefore be leached with applications of wastewater or with rainfall.

Other dissolved solids, such as sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium,
are exchangeable and react within the soil so that their concentrations in the per-
colating water will change with depth.  Other constituents, such as heavy metals,
boron, fluoride, and other trace elements or pesticides, may or may not be  re-
moved by the soil matrix, depending upon such factors as clay content, soil pH,
and soil chemical balance.  On the basis of the analysis of wastewater character-
istics (I.B.4) and the BPT requirements for groundwater protection, any
constituent suspected of having a limiting loading rate  should be identified.
The loading rate of that constituent should then be calculated,  and the resulting
land requirement (as discussed next under I-E.2.a.) should be compared to
the areas calculated for liquid or nitrogen loadings.

Irrigation — Different wastewater constituents may be limiting in irrigation design,
depending on the objectives, crops, and climate involved.  If crop yield or land-
scape enhancement is the major objective,  Water Quality Criteria [176] and
Chapman [27] should be consulted to determine the optimum levels of various
elements for the particular plant and the possible effects of levels other than
optimum on plant quality and yield.  Local farm advisers and  Agricultural Exten-
sion Service agents may be contacted for evaluation of aniticipated special
problems.

When maximum effluent application is practiced, .the crop selected should be able
to tolerate the particular wastewater  at the loadings intended.  The concentrations
of wastewater components will not usually limit the design loadings, provided there
is no probability of groundwater contamination by the percolate.  If such a danger
exists, provisions such as underdrains should be considered.

Infiltration-Percolation — Because of the high liquid loadings  involved, the load-
ings of constituents in even low concentrations can be  considerable. Soils used
for infiltration-percolation usually have little  capacity to retain soluble salts and
may retain only portions of the heavy metals and phosphorus.  The concentrations
of constituents, such as sodium,  chloride, or sulfate, allowable in the renovated
water may affect the design by requiring special controls on the use of the reno-
vated water.
                                    60
-------
The TDS and hardness of the percolating water may increase as a result of a
lowering of the pH of the water.  Reid [132] .reports a TDS increase of 11 percent
and a hardness increase of 30 percent at the 8-foot (2.4-m) depth at Whittier
Narrows, California.  It has been suggested that the pH drop from about 7. 0 to
approximately 6. 6 has been caused by nitrification [132].   Bouwer [20]  reports
only a 4 percent increase in TDS,  which he related to evaporation (3 percent) and
pH drop (1 percent).  A pH drop, whether caused by nitrification or carbon dioxide
generated during BOD oxidation,  can result in dissolution of calcium carbonate,
resulting in an increase in hardness and TDS.

Overland Flow — Because a discharge of effluent that must meet or exceed treat-
ment criteria is usually involved in an overland flow system, the removal of vari-
ous wastewater constituents is important.  The grass and litter in an overland
flow system serve to filter out suspended solids but have little  effect on dissolved
solids.  The loadings of most inorganic constituents will not limit the design of
overland flow systems, although some increase in TDS may occur if evapotranspi-
ration exceeds precipitation.

E. 2.  LAND REQUIREMENTS

The total land area required includes allowances for treatment; buffer zones;
storage,  if necessary; sites for buildings,  roads,  and ditches;  and land  for emer-
gencies or future expansion.   If any on-site preapplication treatment, such as
screening, sedimentation, biological or chemical treatment,  or disinfection, is
required,  an  allowance must be made for the land  needed for these facilities.  The
computation of land requirements is  illustrated in  Example 2.

E. 2  a.  Field Area Requirement — The field area is that portion of the land-
application site in which the treatment process actually takes place.  It  is deter-
mined by comparing the areas and is calculated on the basis of acceptable loading
rates for each different loading parameter (liquid,  nitrogen, phosphorus,  organic,
or others, based on BPT requirements for groundwater protection)  and  then
selecting the  largest area.   The loading parameter that corresponds to the
largest field area requirement would then be the critical loading parameter.
The field area requirement based on the liquid loading rate is calculated by:
                                 Field Area (acres) = *' "^                 (6)
                                                      Li
                 where
                   Q  =  flowrate, mgd
                   L  =  annual liquid loading, ft/yr
                                    61
-------
or:


                                                       315.
                                       riviu Area \LL&)  — 	


                    where
                                       Field Area (ha)  = 315;<*i                   (7)
                      Q  = flowrate, 1/s
                      L  = annual liquid loading,  cm/yr
For loadings of constituents such as nitrogen the field area requirement is
calculated by:
                                     Field Area (acres) = 3'°T40CQ                 (8)
                                                          L>
                    where
                      C   = concentration of constituent, mg/1

                      Q   = flowrate, mgd

                      L   * loading rate of constituent, Ib/acre/yr
                       C
                    or:
                                      Field Area (ha) =                           (9)
                    where
                      C   = concentration of constituent, mg/1

                      Q   = flowrate, i/s

                      L   = loading rate of constituent, kg/ha/yr
                       C
Once the field area has been determined and the critical loading rate has been
identified, the resulting new loading rates for the other loading parameters should
be computed.

A distinction should be made between field area and wetted area.  Field area
represents the area of the treatment system.  The term wetted area refers to the
area to which liquid is directly applied, either the area covered by the diameter
of the spray or the  area inundated by surface application.   The significance of
this difference varies with the treatment method.
                                       62
-------
Irrigation — For spray irrigation, the wetted area may vary from 75 to 100
percent of the field area [131].  The percentage will depend upon the shapes of
the fields, the sprinkler discharge patterns, and the degree of spray overlap.
The highest ratio of wetted area to field area (0. 95-0. 99) occurs with flood and
ridge and furrow systems.

Infiltration-Percolation — The wetted area should be nearly equal to the field
area for most infiltration-percolation systems.  For constructed spreading
basins, considerable land may be lost in side slopes of the basin levees.

Overland Flow — Terminology for overland flow hydraulic loadings and acreages
has not been standardized. Loadings  are most often reported in inches per day
applied to the total field area.   Field area represents the sum of the area under
sprays and the runoff area.  The wetted area (area under sprays) is significantly
less than the field area for current designs using spray application.

Thomas  [164] reports a wetted area of 25 percent of the field area, while wetted
areas of 40 to 45 percent of field areas have been reported for industrial
systems [125] .  It should be noted that more than 25 percent of the land in
the Paris, Texas, overland flow system does not function as either wetted
area or runoff area but is undeveloped [56].

The length of the downhill slope beyond the spray perimeter will vary with the
climate, degree of treatment required, and the wastewater characteristics.
Thomas  [164] reports 88 feet for comminuted domestic wastewater in Ada,
Oklahoma, with  corresponding BOD  removal efficiencies of 92 to 95 percent.
Gilde [56] reports that  95 feet  (29.0 m) is adequate and 50 feet (15.2 m) is the
minimum for cannery wastewater with BOD removal efficiencies greater than
99 percent.  A typical range would be  one to two spray diameters beyond the
spray perimeter.

E. 2. b.  Buffer Zone Allowance

Although there is little actual data concerning aerosols, there  is considerable
concern  about the effects of aerosol-borne pathogens.  Therefore,  application
of effluent by spraying  may require buffer zones or other measures to ensure
that aerosols are contained on the site.  Buffer zones ranging from 50  to
200 feet  (15.2 to 61. 0 m) wide have been reported  [125], although requirements
for even larger buffer zones may exist.   The size of the buffer zone that may be
required is dependent on a number of  factors, and  will generally be controlled by
the cognizant public health authority (I-F.2.d).

E. 2. c.   Land for Storage

Irrigation and overland flow systems Will generally require off-season or winter
storage. Storage may  also be useful to equalize flowrates or to provide emer-
gency backup.  The land required for  storage lagoons or poijH  may be consider-
able, especially in the  northern states.   Even in semiarid Abilene, Texas,
18 percent of the 2,019 acre (817 ha) irrigation farm is used for  storage ponds [125]
                                    63
-------
Infiltration -percolation systems incorporating spreading basins can usually
operate throughout the year, if the limiting loading rate was established for
winter conditions.

E.2.e.  Land for Future Expansion or Emergencies

Area for potential future expansion  of a land -application system should be con-
sidered in the planning stage.  If it  is known that the adjacent land is planned
for development and will be unavailable for future  use, the system should not
be referred to as a long-term solution. Often, it is  prudent to obtain excess
land for emergency use.  Such things as excessive rainfall, breakdown of pre-
application treatment operations, or natural disasters would constitute
emergencies.

          EXAMPLE No. 2 - Calculate the land requirements for a
                            one mgd (43. 8 1/s) irrigation system.

     Assumptions

      1.   The design liquid loading rate is 152 in./yr (386 cm/yr) from
          Example No. 1,  or 12.67 ft/yr  (3.86 m/yr).

      2.   On the basis of the nitrogen balance, the nitrogen loading rate is
          determined to be 650 Ib/acre/yr (740 kg/ha/yr).  The average total
          nitrogen  concentration in the effluent from preapplication treatment
          is 18 mg/1.

      3.   Concentrations of TDS and boron, and the  SAR,  are within an accept-
          able range.

      4.   A buffer  zone  of 150 feet (45. 7 m) is required around the perimeter of
          the site.

      5.   A 145 acre -foot  (179, 000 cu m) storage reservoir (from Example
          No. 3) of 10 feet (3. 05 m) average depth is included on the site. A
          dike of 50 feet (15. 2 m) average width surrounds the reservoir.

      6.   A total of 4 acres (1. 6 ha) is required for buildings, roads,  ditches,
          and other miscellaneous  items.

      7.   Preapplication treatment facilities exist off -site.

      Solution

      1.   The field area required,  based on the liquid loading rate is computed
          from Equation 6:
                  Field area =              = 88. 3 acres (35. 7 ha)
                                       64
-------
2.   The field area required, based on the nitrogen loading rate, is computed
     from Equation 8:
    A comparison of the two field area requirements shows that the liquid
    loading rate is controlling; therefore the actual field area required is
    88.3 acres  (35.7 ha).

3.  The area required for storage is:

           Area of reservoir = •1451QC^e"ft = 14.5 acres (5.9 ha)


    Assuming that the reservoir is rectangular with sides of 1, 000 and
    650 feet (305 and 198 m), the area required for the dike is approximately
    4 acres (1. 6 ha).  The total area required for storage is  then 18. 5
    acres (7.5 ha).

4.  The subtotal of the area required is:

    Total Field Area

    Storage

    Buildings, roads, ditches, etc.

                                           110. 8 acres (44. 8 ha)

    Assuming that this area is rectangular with sides of 3, 000 and  1, 600
    feet (914 and 488 m), the area required  for the buffer zone is approxi-
    mately 34 acres (13. 8 ha).  The total area required for the system is
    then approximately 145 acres (59 ha).

Comments

1.  The result of this process is only an approximation of the total land
    requirements.  A more detailed analysis would require that a prelimi-
    nary layout or site plan be made so that topographic irregularities and
    irregularities in the shape of the land parcel could be taken into account.

2.  In this example, a factor of safety was not applied to the  calculation
    of field area, nor was extra land included  for future expansion or
    emergencies.
                                65
-------
E. 3.  CROP SELECTION

Proper crop selection is of great importance in the design of irrigation systems,
and to a lesser degree,  of overland flow systems.  It may also be of importance
for infiltration-percolation systems in which vegetation is grown on the infiltra-
tion surface.  Factors that should be considered include:  (1) relationship to
critical loading parameter,  (2) public health regulations,  (3) ease of cultivation
and harvesting, and  (4) the length of the growing season. The four general
classes of crops that may be considered are:

      • Perennials (forage or fruit crops)

      • Annuals (field crops)

      • Landscape vegetation

      • Forest vegetation

For irrigation systems from which maximum crop yields are desired,  the crops
considered should be indigenous to the area.  Any exceptions to this  recommen-
dation should have a sound agronomic basis.  For high-rate systems in which
water tolerance of the vegetation is necessary, plants that are not indigenous to
the area may be grown successfully.  In any case, the plants should  be compati-
ble with the climate and growing season.

E. 3. a.  Relationship to Critical Loading Parameter

Loading rates developed in the previous section should be related to  the toler-
ances and uptake capacities of the intended crops.  Compatibility of the loading
rates with the potential crop is important to ensure both the survival of the crop
and the efficiency of wastewater renovation.  In many cases, crop selection will
be dependent on a combination of loading parameters, including (1) water re-
quirement and tolerance, (2)  nutrient requirements, tolerances, and removal
capability, and (3) sensitivity to various inorganic ions.

Water Requirement and Tolerance — Potential crops may be selected on the basis
of their suitability to the hydraulic conditions that will exist. The objective is to
find a crop able to withstand wetter-than-normal conditions and a soil that is
frequently saturated. This may be the case particularly in overland flow and
infiltration-percolation systems. The soil characteristics, particularly as re-
lated to the  infiltration and percolation capacity, will greatly affect the ability of
the potential crop to withstand these conditions. Consultation with Agricultural
Extension Service representatives, agronomists, or local farmers may be nec-
essary to determine crop tolerances.  In cases in which crop selection is based
on other criteria, the liquid loading rate may require adjustment on  the basis of
the water requirement of the chosen crop.
                                     66
-------
Nutrient Requirements, Tolerances, and Removal Capabilities - Frequently, a
crop may be selected because of its removal capacity for essential nutrients,
particularly nitrogen and phosphorus.  Although nutrient removal through crop
uptake and subsequent harvesting is most effective in irrigation systems, it is
also of significance in overland flow L;. 3tems.  If required, removal capacities
for many specific elements, such as boron,  zinc, and copper, may be found in
Reed 1130] for agricultural crops and Sopper [148, 150] for trees.  Typical crop
uptake values of nitrogen are shown for a number of selected crops in Table 6.

Potential adverse effects on crops from high concentrations of nutrients should
also be considered, particularly when the quality of the crop is of great impor-
tance.  Excess nitrogen, for example,  may  cause excessive plant height, late
maturation of fruit, and other problems in plants such  as grapes [130].  Con-
sultation by the engineer with agronomists or Agricultural Extension Service
representatives may be necessary to determine nutrient requirements and toler-
ances, including seasonal variations.

Sensitivity to Inorganic Ions — Crop selection must often be based on tolerance
to the various inorganic ions present in the applied wastewater or to those ions
that may build up in the soil after a number  of years.  Toxic levels of boron and
high salinity are the most common problems.  The long-term buildup of various
heavy metals to toxic levels should be considered.  The reduced response in
terms  of percent yield decrement for various crops in  arid and semiarid climates
to conductivity levels is shown in Tables 7 and 8. Additional data on tolerances
of various crops to certain elements and descriptions of toxic effects may be
found in Chapman [27] and references [1, 110, 125, 130, 176],  Suggested toler-
ance levels for heavy metals for various crops may be found in Melsted [99].

E. 3.b. Public Health Regulations

Various state public health regulations exist with regard to:  (1) the types of
crops that may be irrigated with wastewater;  (2) the degree of preapplication
treatment required for certain types of crops; and  (3) the methods of applica-
tion that may be employed.  As of 1972, at least 17 states had such regulations
[156],  which vary widely in several respects.  Generally, however, most states
prohibit the use of untreated sewage or primary effluent on vegetables grown
for human consumption, while some states allow irrigation of vegetables with
highly  treated, oxidized, and disinfected effluent [125]. Contradicting regulations
exist for the irrigation of pasturelands, recreational lands, and other areas
[160],  State public health officials or other  applicable  authorities such as the
FDA should be consulted for existing regulations and guidelines.  The literature
review of public health effects by Sepp [143] may be helpful to the engineer, par-
ticularly in states in which regulations are incomplete  or do not exist.

E. 3. c. Ease of Cultivation and Harvesting

The ease of cultivation and harvesting  of the selected crop may be of importance,
particularly for systems in which operation  is to remain as simple as possible.
                                     67
-------
          Table 7.  YIELD DECREMENT TO BE EXPECTED FOR
                     FIELD CROPS DUE TO SALINITY OF IRRIGA-
                     TION WATER WHEN COMMON SURFACE
                     METHODS ARE USEDa
Crop
Barley
Sugarbeets
Cotton
Safflower
Wheat
Sorghum
Soybean
Sesbania
Rice (paddy)
Corn
Broadbean
Flax
Beans (field)

ECeb
8
6.7d
6.7
5.3
4.7d
4
3.7
2.7
3.3
3.3
2.3
2
1
0%
ECwb
5.3
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.1
2.7
2.5
1.8
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.3
.7

TDSb
3,392
2.880
2.880
2,240
1.984
1.728
1,600
1.152
1,408
1,408
960
832
448

ECe
12
10d
10
8
7d
6
5.5
4
5
5
3.5
3
1.5
10%
ECw
8
6.7
6.7
5.3
4.7
4
3.7
2.7
3.3
3.3
2.3
2
1

TDS
5.120
4.288
4.288
3,392
3,008
2,560
2,368
1.728
2,112
2,112
1,472
1,280
640

ECe
16
13
12
11
10
9
7
5.5
6
6
4.5
4.5
2
25%
ECw
10.7
8.7
8
7.3
6.7
6
4.7
3.7
4
4
3
3
1.3

TDS
6,848
5,568
5,120
4,672
4,288
3,840
3,088
2,368
2,560
2,560
1,920
1,920
832

ECe
18
16
16
14
14
12
9
9
8
7
6.5
6.5
3.5
50%
ECw
12
10.7
10.7
8
9.3
8
6
6
5.3
4.7
4.3-
4.3
2.3

TDS
7,680
6,848
6,848
5,120
5.952
5,120
3,840
3,840
3,392
3,008
2,752
2.752
1,472
Maximum.
ECdw°
44
42
42
28
40
36
26
26
24
18
18
18
12
 a.  From Reference [7],

 b.  ECe means electrical conductivity of saturation extract In mlllimhos per centimeter (mmho/cm);
    ECw means electrical conductivity of Irrigation water (in mmho/cm). TDS in mg/L = ECw x 640.

 c.  ECdw shows maximum concentration of salts in drainage water permissible for growth. Use to calculate leaching
    requirement (LR = ECw/ECdw x 100 = %) to maintain needed ECe in active root area; Leaching Requirement (LR)
    means that fraction of the irrigation water that must be leached through the active root zone to control soil salinity
    at a specified level.

    NOTE:  Conversion from ECe to ECw assumes a three-fold concentration of salinity in soil solution (ECsw) In the
          more active part of the root zone due to evapotranspiratlon.  ECw x 3 » ECsw; ECsw + 2 - ECe.

 d.  Tolerance during germination (wets) or early seedling stage (wheat,  barley) is limited to ECe about 4 mmho/cm.
Because the soil may often be saturated,  the operation of farm machinery may
be difficult or may cause excessive soil compaction, necessitating the selection
of a crop requiring little field maintenance.  Selection of a perennial crop over
an annual crop to avoid annual field preparation and planting may be worth ex-
amining.

E. 3. d.  Length of Growing Season

The length of the growing season should be considered for potential crops, along
with seasonal variations in water requirements,  and nutrient uptake.  Storage
                                           68
-------
    Table 8.  YIELD DECREMENT TO BE EXPECTED FOR FORAGE
              CROPS DUE TO SALINITY OF IRRIGATION WATER*
Crop
Bermuda Grass
Tall Wheat Crass
Crested Wh. Grass
Tall Fescue
Barley 
-------
established, with species selected on the basis of their suitability to land appli-
cation.  General information on the use of forestlands for land application is
contained in Cunningham [31] and Kazlowski [74],  Information on nutrient up-
take, growth responses, and general suitability is available for a limited num-
ber of tree species in references [1, 130, 148].

E.4.  STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

In almost all land-application systems, storage facilities will be required.  Re-
quired capacities may range from less than one day's storage to 6 months'.
The primary considerations in determining storage capacity are the local cli-
mate and the design period of operation;  however, storage for system backup
and flow equalization should also be considered.   The possibility of a secondary
use of the stored wastewater should be investigated.

E. 4. a.  Length of Operating Season and Climate

Most often, the storage requirements will be based on the period of operation
and the climate.  Three different conditions can be encountered that necessitate
storage:

      • Winter weather requiring cessation of operation

      •  Precipitation requiring the temporary reduction or cessation of
         application

      • Winter weather requiring reduction of winter application rates

Generally, the most convenient method of determining the storage requirement
is by means of an extension of the monthly water balance (I. E. 1. a.).  This
method is illustrated in Example 3 for a hypothetical system in which a portion
of the flow must be stored during the winter months when application rates are
reduced.

When cessation of operation resulting from winter weather is expected, storage
requirements should be based on the maximum expected period of nonoperation.
The maximum period should be based on a frequency analysis of historical win-
ter weather data.  Frost dates, periods of frozen ground conditions, and snow
cover should also be considered.

Temporary storage of wastewater may often be necessary when large amounts of
precipitation prohibit normal application rates, because of the danger of un-
wanted runoff, or the effects of hydraulic overloading on crops and renovation
efficiencies.   The system should be evaluated to determine if excessive precipi-
tation can be retained on the fields or if application should be ceased.  Precipi-
tation data should then be analyzed to determine the frequency of conditions
requiring temporary reduction or cessation of wastewater application and subse-
quent storage requirements.
                                     70
-------
In cases where reduced application rates are necessary for the winter season,
an economic trade-off can be made between partial storage in winter versus
acquiring more land for winter application.  For infiltration-percolation sys-
tems, cold weather may require only a reduction in the application rate
(I-E.2.C.).

In calculations of storage requirements, it may often be necessary to assume a
greater amount of precipitation than was assumed for the liquid loading evalu-
ation (I-E. 1.). The  amount of precipitation that must be assumed will depend to
a large  extent on the degree of reliability required for the particular system
and the  potential effects of reaching or exceeding the storage capacity in any
given year.  In some cases, it may be prudent to apply a factor-of-safety  to
the storage capacity (I-E. 9. e.).

     EXAMPLE No. 3 — Calculate the storage capacity requirements for
                       a one mgd (43. 8 1/s) irrigation system.

     Assumptions

     1.  The design precipitation is the wettest year in 50, with average
         monthly distribution.

     2.  The total monthly water losses, including evapotranspiration and de-
         sign percolation are the same as in Example No. 1.

     3.  The actual field area is 88. 3 acres (35. 7 ha) (from Example No. 2).

     4.  The design year begins in October, at which time the storage reser-
         voir is empty.

     5.  The flow  of 1 mgd (43. 8 1/s) is constant throughout the year.

     Solution - The calculation of storage requirements per acre of field  area
               is shown in Table 9.

     1.  The effluent  available per month is:

               t-ff    -i ui   _ 1 mgd x 30.4 day/mo x 36. 8 acre-in./mg
               tu.  avauaoie                88.3 acre

                           = 12.7 in./mo (32.3 cm/mo)


         which is entered into Column 2 of Table 9.

     2.  From a. curve similar to Figure 2, the design annual precipitation for
         the wettest year in 50 is found to be 17. 0 in. (43.2 cm). The precip-
         itation is distributed over the year on the basis  of average distribution
         and entered into Column 3.
                                      71
-------
Table 9.   CALCULATION OF STORAGE VOLUME REQUIREMENTS PER
          ACRE OF FIELD AREA FOR EXAMPLE NO. 3
Month
(1)
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Effluent
available,
in.
(2)
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
12.7
Precipitation,
in.
(3)
0.8
1.3
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.1
0.5
0.3
0.1
Trace
0.3
0.8
Total,
in.
(2) + (3) =
(4)
13.5
14.0
15.6
15.7
15.7
15.4
14.8
13.2
13.0
12.8
12.7
13.0
13.5
Water
losses,
in.
(5)
13.9
11.5
10.8
10.7
11.5
13.1
13.9
15.2
16.5
17.0
16.5
14.4
13.9
AStorage ,
in.
(4) - (5) -
(6)
-0.4
2.5
4.8
5.0
4.2
2.3
0.9
-2.0
-3.5
-4.2
-3.8
-1.4
-0.4
Total
storage ,
in.
(7)
0
2.5
7.3
12.3
16.5
18.8
19.7
17.7
14.2
10.0
6.2
4.8
4.4
 Note:  1 inch = 2.54cm.
  3.   The total monthly water losses are taken from Column 4 of Table 5 and
      entered into Column 5 of Table 9.

  4.   The monthly change in storage volume (Column 6 of Table 9) is com-
      puted by subtracting Column 5 from Column 4.

  5.   The total accumulated storage (Column 7) is computed by summing the
      monthly  change in storage.

  6.   The maximum storage requirement is found to be 19. 7 in. (50. 0 cm)
      occurring in the month of April.  This is converted to total storage
      volume by:
Storage vol
                        19' 7
                                     acre
                                         = 145 acre ft (179,000 cu m)
                                 72
-------
      Comments

      1.  In this example, it was assumed that the reservoir was empty at the
          beginning of the winter season.  In actual practice, this may often not
          be the case.  Consequently, it may be wise to assume an initial amount
          of storage, or to assume back-to-back wetter-than-normal years if
          storage volume is critical.

      2.  In some cases, it may be possible to ensure that the stored water is
          completely withdrawn during the summer season for the storage design
          year.  This may be possible if design application rates  are chosen con-
          servatively or if extra land is included for emergencies.

      3.  For example purposes, the calculation of storage requirements was
          conducted separately from the calculation of the water balance  (Exam-
          ple No. 1).  It may often be convenient to combine these calculations.

      4.  In this example, a factor of safety was not applied to the total storage
          volume.

E.4.b. For System Backup

Storage requirements may be necessary for system backup or to preclude by-
passing of wastewater during periods of mechanical failure, maintenance, power
failure, or other problems. Storage for this purpose will add to the reliability
and flexibility of the system.  For systems in which storage requirements are
otherwise small, requirements for system backup may be of significance. Con-
sideration should be given to provision for gravity flow to storage backup facil-
ities under conditions of power failure.  For additional considerations, the
technical bulletin on reliability [35] should be consulted.

£.4.c.  For Flow Equalization

Storage of wastewater for flow equalization may be necessary if daily fluctua-
tions in flow are significant and hinder the proper application of wastewater.
The sustained peak  flow (I-B.I.) should be analyzed to determine the required
storage.  Consideration of storage requirements for this purpose is normally
necessary only for systems for which no other storage requirements exist.  In
most other cases, daily fluctuations in flow are easily absorbed in the larger
storage capacities required for other purposes.

E.4.d.  Secondary Uses  of Stored Wastewater

After storage requirements have been determined, the possibility of secondary
use of the stored wastewater (prior to land application) should be investigated.
The areas of potential use are highly dependent on the quality of the stored waste-
water and the degree of preapplication treatment it has received.  Perhaps the
most noteworthy of  the potential  uses is as industrial cooling water.
                                     73
-------
E. 5.  PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

The degree of treatment required prior to land application will depend upon a
number of factors, including:  (1) public health regulations,  (2) the loading
rate with respect to critical wastewater characteristics, and (3) the desired
effectiveness and dependability of the physical equipment.  It is conceivable for
a system in which long-term winter storage is  required that the degree of treat-
ment determined from the preceding considerations will not be adequate to pre-
vent odors from developing in the storage ponds. In such cases, costs for
increased treatment may be weighed against designing the storage ponds as
stabilization ponds to prevent odor  generation.

Existing treatment facilities  should also be evaluated, and other design criteria
— particularly loading rates and crop  selection — should be reconsidered in light
of the preapplication treatment requirements.

E. 5. a.  Public Health Considerations

Public health considerations, and regulations (in states where they exist), are
normally the most important factors in determining the required degree of pre-
application treatment.  Factors that should be considered include:

      •   Type of crop grown

      •   Intended use of the crop

      •   Degree of contact of the public with the effluent

      •   Intended secondary use of  the application area

      •   Method of application

State regulations for treatment prior  to irrigation differ considerably.  For ex-
ample, the irrigation of certain crops to be eaten raw by humans may require
either secondary treatment with disinfection or advanced wastewater treatment
with disinfection,  or it may be prohibited altogether [156],  State public health
officials should be consulted  for existing regulations and guidelines.  As an
illustrative example, the regulations  for California are included in Appendix E.
In addition, it may also be helpful to contact the FDA or other appropriate agen-
cies,  particularly when state guidance is lacking or not complete.

E. 5.b.  Relationship to Loading Rate

The degree of preapplication treatment given the wastewater prior to application
will often have a considerable effect on the loading rate, and the final quality of
the renovated water.  Of concern are those wastewater constituents that may tend
to limit the application rate,  or for which the degree of renovation by land
                                      74
-------
application is insufficient.  Concentrations of suspended solids must often be
reduced to prevent soil clogging and land surface coating at design liquid loading
rates.  Concentrations of other constituents - such as BOD, nitrogen, phosphor-
us, and various inorganic ions - may need to be reduced to prevent the effects
of overloading and to ensure the required quality of the  renovated water.  In
many cases, liquid loading  rates may be increased with no adverse effects on
the renovated water quality, if the concentrations of various constituents are
reduced.

E. 5. c.  Relationship to Effectiveness of Physical Equipment

The effectiveness and dependability of the pumping and distribution system will
be largely affected by the degree of preapplication treatment,  especially with
respect to reduction of suspended solids. High concentrations of grit and sus-
pended solids may cause:  (1) the clogging of sprinkler  nozzles,  (2) the scoring
of pump parts, and  (3) sedimentation in pipes and conduits.  High-pressure
spray irrigation systems are normally the most susceptible to damage.  Grease
and oil can also cause maintenance problems in valves, pipelines, and sprink-
lers.

E.6.  MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Management considerations should be kept in mind throughout the planning stage
of the project.  Factors that should be considered include: (1) system control
and maintenance,  (2) manpower requirements for operation and maintenance,
(3) monitoring requirements, and (4) emergency procedures and safeguards.
Detailed procedures should be incorporated into the Operation and Maintenance
Manual, which is  discussed in Part m.

E.6.a.  System Control and Maintenance

The method and degree of system control and maintenance requirements should
be evaluated for each of the prospective land-application alternatives.  System
control may be manual or partially automatic,  depending on the complexity of
the system and the degree of variation expected in operating conditions.  Most
systems will require direct control; however,  for irrigation systems in which
effluent is supplied to independent farmers, control in possible only through
contract agreements. Maintenance requirements should be realistically assessed,
with emphasis on dependability of the system.

E.6.b.  Manpower Requirements

Manpower requirements are related directly to the methods of system control
and the maintenance requirements.  The approximate number of personnel re-
quired should be determined, along with some indication of the necessary per-
sonnel qualifications and training requirements.  Tchobanoglous  [162], as shown
in Table 10, has estimated annual manhour requirements for hypothetical 1-mgd
                                    75
-------
 (43.8 1/s) land treatment systems.  Staffing requirements are also discussed
 in references [49, 120].

     Table 10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL MANHOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR
               LAND-APPLICATION ALTERNATIVES WITH A DESIGN
               FLOW OF 1.0 MGDa [162]b
Annual manhours
Category
Supervisory
Clerical
Laboratory
Yard
Operation
Maintenance
Total
Irrigation
416
104
416
208
1,040
1,248
3,432
Overland
flow
416
104
416
208
832
1,040
3,016
Infiltration-
percolation
416
104
416
208
520
416
2,080
                a. 1 mgd = 43. 8 1/s

                b. Labor requirements for preapplication treatment
                   are not included.

                c. Includes preparation of reports.
E. 6. c.  Monitoring Requirements

The system, must be evaluated to determine monitoring requirements necessary
to ensure that proper renovation of wastewater is occurring and that environ-
mental degradation is not.  In many states,  monthly self-monitoring reports must
be submitted  to the agency responsible for water pollution control.  In addition,
monitoring may also be conducted for design refinement or research purposes.
Generally,  water-quality monitoring is important for each stage of the treatment
process, including the groundwater and any renovated water that is  recovered
for reuse or discharge.

For many land-application systems, particularly those with significant deep
percolation rates, the monitoring requirement of primary importance in the
                                    76
-------
planning stage will be that of groundwater.  A network of monitoring wells, or
other monitoring devices, both on and off the site will often be necessary and
will require significant planning.  Special agreements may need to be formulated
to drill and maintain access to off-site wells.  Hydrogeologic considerations
pertaining to groundwater flow and the  proper placement of monitoring wells
are discussed by Parizek [117].

E. 6. d.  Emergency Procedures

Emergency operating procedures should be considered at this point if serious
environmental damage could result from equipment breakdown, severe weather,
or power loss. An analysis should be made of the detrimental results that would
occur if power service were interrupted for various lengths of time.

E.7.  COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

To properly select the best wastewater treatment alternative,  a cost-
effectiveness analysis must be performed.  To conduct such an analysis, de-
tailed cost estimates must be prepared.  The cost estimates for each alternative
must be compared on an equivalent basis in terms of total present worth or
annual cost.  For example, the total annual cost of an alternative  would include
costs for operation, maintenance, and  supervision and the amortized capital
cost.

Federal regulations on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (40 CFR 35) should be con-
sulted, along with applicable state regulations for the proper methods  of
conducting the analysis.  Capital and operating cost considerations of importance
for land-application systems are discussed in the following subsections, while
social and environmental costs are discussed in the following section on
Environmental Assessment.

E. 7. a.  Capital Cost Considerations

Capital costs of importance for land-application systems include:  acquisition of
land,  easements, water rights procurement and rights-of-way; relocation of
buildings and residents; materials and  construction costs for preapplication
treatment facilities,  earthwork,  transmission, distribution, collection (for over-
land flow and underdrained systems), and monitoring facilities; administrative,
legal, and engineering fees; startup costs; and interest during construction.
Special considerations for capital cost  estimations for land-application systems -
including construction cost indexes,  service life of equipment, and land costs —
are discussed in the following subsections.

E. 7. a. 1.  Construction or Other Cost Index — Because costs are  changing and
vary geographically, cost indexes published periodically are most useful in
determining current local costs.  An estimate of the cost of construction of an
item can be made at one date and referenced to a cost index.  To determine the
comparable present cost, the current index is located .and the cost is updated
by multiplying by the ratio of the two indexes.
                                     77
-------
A common index in the construction industry is the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost (ENRCC) index, which is weighted toward building and
heavy construction.  For conventional treatment plants, a more appropriate
index is the  EPA Sewage Treatment Plant index.  For pipelines and drainage
systems,  the EPA Sewer Construction Cost index can be used. All three indexes
are published in Engineering News Record.

E. 7. a. 2.  Service Life of Equipment — The service life of much of the equipment
used in land-application systems is highly variable. Standard service lives
for conventional treatment processes are presented in the Federal Regulations on
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (40 CFR 35). Special service lives contained in
Table 11 have been suggested by the Sprinkler Irrigation Association [155], and
the University of Missouri Extension Division [l].  It should be noted that these
service lives are  for standard irrigation equipment used typically for periodic
use during 4 to 6 months of the year.  If irrigation machines are specially
designed for wastewater operations, they can be expected to attain similar
service lives.  Therefore, factors particular to the system under consideration
that may affect the expected service life include the annual  period of operation,
frequency of application, and  wastewater characteristics.

E.7.a.3.  Land Costs — Costs for land can be a considerable part of the initial
capital cost,  particularly for  irrigation systems and for systems in relatively
developed areas.  Alternative methods of acquisition, as discussed in  the
previous  section,  should be compared on a cost-effective basis when praticable.
Costs related to land acquisition,  such as the acquisition of easements and
rights-of-way and the relocation of residents, should also be  included. In the
cost-effectiveness analysis, land  shall have a salvage value at the end of the
planning period equal to its prevailing market value at the time of the analysis.

E.7.b.  Fixed Annual Costs

Annual costs for operation and maintenance should be included in the cost
analysis through the planning  period (20 years).  Fixed annual costs include
labor,  maintenance,  supplies, and monitoring. Inflation of wages and prices
should not be included unless  significant changes in the relative prices of
certain items are anticipated  (40 CFR 35).

E.7.C. Flow-Related Annual  Costs

Power is the major annual cost that depends on the annual quantity of wastewater
treated.  Economic returns, such as those from the sale of crops and/or
renovated water,  should also  be considered.  Costs of disposal should be
included if the crop or vegetation  is not marketable.

E. 7. d.  Nonmonetary F actors

Social and environmental factors and economic impacts are discussed  in
Section F.
                                    78
-------
                  Table 11.  SUGGESTED SERVICE LIFE FOR
            COMPONENTS OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM [155] and [l]
Component
Well and casing
Pump plant housing
Pump, turbine:
Bowl (about 50% of cost of pump unit)
Column, etc.
Pump, centrifugal
Power transmission:
Gear bead
V-belt
Flat belt, rubber and fabric
Flat belt, leather
Power units:
Electric motor
Diesel engine
Gasoline or distillate:
Air-cooled
Water-cooled
Propane engine
Open farm ditches (permanent)
Concrete structures
Concrete pipe systems
Wood flumes
Pipe, surface, gated
Pipe, water works class
Pipe, steel, coated, underground
Pipe, aluminum, sprinkler use
Pipe, steel, coated, surface use only
Pipe, steel galvanized, surface only
Pipe, wood buried
Sprinkler heads
Solid set sprinkler system
Center pivot sprinkler system
Side roll traveling system
Traveling gun sprinkler system
Traveling gun hose system
Land grading"
Reservoirs0

Hoursa



16,000
32,000
32,000

30,000
6,000
10, 000
20,000

50, 000
28,000

8,000
18,000
28, 000



















Service life
or



or
or
or

or
or
or
or

or
or

or
or
or




















Years
20
20

8
16
16

15
3
5
10

25
14

4
9
14
20
20
20
8
10
40
20
15
10
15
20
8
20
10-14
15-20
10
4
None
None
a.   These hours may be used for year-round operations.  The comparable period in years was
    based upon a seasonal use of 2, 000 hr per year.

b.   Some sources depreciate land leveling in 7-15 years.  However, if proper annual maintenance
    is practiced: figure only interest on the leveling costs.  Use interest on capital invested in
    water right purchase.

c.   Except where silting from watershed above will fill reservoir in an estimated period of years.
                                         79
-------
E. 8.  FLEXIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVE

Items that allow flexibility should be included in each element of the design.
Flexibility in the design of the system should generally be considered with
respect to:  (1) changes in treatment requirements, (2) changes in waste-
water characteristics, (3) ease of expansion, (4) changes in land utilization,
and (5) technological advances.

E.S.a.  Changes in Treatment Requirements

The alternative plan should include provisions to upgrade water quality to
meet more stringent treatment requirements. Various methods of upgrading
could include increased preapplication treatment and reduction of application
rates.

E.S.b.  Changes in Wastewater Characteristics

In some cases, changes in wastewater characteristics may result from
changes in the water supply, new industries,  or changes in the effluent
characteristics of existing industries.  An assessment should be made of
the ability of the system to handle these potential changes, particularly in-
creases in certain critical wastewater constituents.  Compensating modifica-
tions to the system,  such as increased preapplication treatment or reduced
loading rates,  should be identified.

E. 8. c.  Ease of Expansion

Careful consideration should be given to the design capacity of the land-
application system and to the ease with which the system can be expanded.
Both planned stages of expansion and the need for expansion that might result
from unforeseen circumstances should be considered.  All components of the
system that will be  affected  by expansion should be considered including:

     •    Amount of land available

     •    Storage capacity

     •    Preapplication treatment capacity

     •    Transmission facilities

The environmental impact of potential expansions should also be evaluated.
                                      80
-------
E.S.d.  Changing Land Use

Future modifications to a land treatment system may be necessary because
of changes in adjacent land use.  For example, a treatment system originally
situated in an agricultural or undeveloped area may, after a number of years,
become surrounded by  residential, commercial, or industrial developments.
Requirements for odor control and aesthetics may become more strict and
unforeseen health concerns may arise.  Modifications to the system, such as
additional buffer zones and stricter control procedures, may be necessary.
Treatment alternatives should be evaluated for effects that vary with different
uses of the surrounding land.

E. 8. e.  Technological  Advances

Future system modifications resulting from technological advances may be
possible.  Wastewater  treatment by land application is presently the subject
of a great deal of study and research. As a result,  many new guidelines and
new techniques are  anticipated.  Advances may be possible in preapplication
treatment, application techniques, system monitoring, and in the knowledge
of soil-water-plant  relationships.

E.9.  RELIABILITY

The reliability and dependability of the system are critical, particularly if the
adverse effects of an operational breakdown or a poorly operating system
may be great.  Areas of susceptibility,  such as nozzle clogging, lack of
standby equipment,  or  lack of storage, should be identified and sufficient
safeguards employed whenever possible.  A number of reliability features,
including factors-of-safety, backup systems, and contingency provisions,
should be  included in the design of land-application systems (II-C. 9.).  In
most cases, the requirement for these features should also be addressed in
the preliminary plan.   For additional considerations, the EPA technical
bulletin on reliability [35] should be consulted.

E. 9.a.  To Meet or Exceed Discharge Requirements

The reliability of the system should be assessed with respect to its ability
to meet or exceed present and future discharge requirements consistently.
This reliability should be assessed under both normal operating and potential
abnormal  conditions.

E. 9.b.  Failure Rate Due to Operational Breakdown

The possibility of system failure resulting from operational breakdown of
various components should be evaluated.  The breakdown of the physical
equipment and preapplication treatment facilities and the temporary inability
of the soil to accept further application represent system failures. The con-
sequences of system failure should be evaluated and additional safeguards,
including the use of backup systems,  should be considered.
                                     81
-------
E. 9. c.  Vulnerability to Natural Disasters

The vulnerability of the system to natural disasters, such as earthquakes,
hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods,  should be assessed.  The probable conse-
quences should be considered, and safeguards, when they are feasible,  should
be employed.  Possible courses of action to deal with such events should be
included in the operation and maintenance manual.

E. 9.d.  Adequate Supply of Required Resources

The reliability of the system should be evaluated with respect to the adequacy
of both the present and the anticipated future supply of required resources.
Resources that may require evaluation include:  power, material for soil
additions, manpower, and chemicals required for preapplication treatment.

E.9.e.  Factors-of-Safety

One of the more significant reliability features that should be addressed in the
preliminary planning stage is the inclusion of factors-of-safety in the design
of various system components, such as flow capacities,  field area require-
ments ,  and storage capacities.  It is usually prudent to view the entire  system
when evaluating the need for factors-of-safety, because the reliability of one
particular component often affects the degree of reliability necessary for
other components.
                                     82
-------
                                  Section F

                       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


The impact of the project on the environment, including public health, social,
and economic aspects must be assessed for each land-application alternative.
Environmental assessments are required for all federally funded projects,
and similar reports are required by many state and local governments.   This
section is not intended to replace existing guidelines (40 CFR 6) for the prep-
aration of environmental assessments, but instead is designed to highlight
some of the important considerations particular to land application.

In accordance with existing guidelines, environmental assessment will gen-
erally consist of:

      •   Description of the environmental setting

      •   Determination of components affected

      •   Evaluation of possible methods of mitigation of adverse effects

      •   Determination of unavoidable adverse effects

      •   Evaluation of overall and long-term effects

Environmental  component interactions  should be considered and measurable
parameters identified if possible.

F.I.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Environmental  components that may be affected by land-application systems
include:  (1)  soil and vegetation, (2) groundwater, (3) surface water,
(4)  animal and insect life, (5)  air quality, and (6) local climate. Effects
on the soil, vegetation, and groundwater are normally the most critical,  with
the effects on surface water being critical at times.

F. 1. a.  Soil and Vegetation

The effects of land application on the soil and vegetation can be either bene-
ficial or adverse, with the overall effect most often being mixed. Effects on
surrounding land and vegetation may be brought about by changes in various
conditions, such as groundwater levels, drainage areas, and microclimates.
                                  83
-------
Soil conditions, including drainage characteristics and levels of chemical
constituents, may be affected by land application.  Infiltration and percolation
capacities may decrease as a result of clogging by suspended solids, although
proper management techniques including resting periods and soil  surface
raking may help to mitigate this  condition.  Rates may also increase or
decrease as a result of changing chemical conditions, such as the pH and
sodium content of the soil.  Long-term effects on the soil chemistry, such as
the buildup of certain constituents to toxic levels, may be critical in land-
application systems,  Effects on soil conditions should be predicted initially,
and appropriate monitoring requirements should be defined.  Various refer-
ences , particularly Thomas and  Law [167], may be helpful in predicting soil
effects.

The effects on vegetation are usually beneficial for a well-operated system.
Virtually all essential plant nutrients are found in wastewater and should
stimulate plant growth.  Toxic levels of certain constituents in  the soil, which
may reduce growth or render crops unsuitable for the intended  use must be
evaluated [27], Excess hydraulic loadings or poor soil aeration may also be
harmful to plant growth.

F. 1. b.  Groundwater

The groundwater  quality and level will be affected by most land-application
systems.  Exceptions would be many overland flow,  underdrained, and
pumped withdrawal systems. Wastewater constituents that are not used by
the plants, degraded by microorganisms,  or fixed in the soil may leach to the
groundwater.  Nitrate nitrogen is the constituent of most concern; however,
heavy metals, phosphorus, organics, total dissolved solids,  and  other
elements discussed in I-B. 4 may also be of significance.

Groundwater levels may be affected by land application, particulary for
infiltration-percolation  systems. In turn, groundwater flow may  be affected
with respect to both rate and direction of movement. The direction and effects
of the altered groundwater  flow must be predicted, and appropriate monitoring
requirements defined.

F. 1. c.  Surface Water

Surface waters may be affected directly by (1) discharge from an  overland
flow, underdrained,  or  pumped withdrawal system,  (2) interception  of seep-
age from an infiltration-percolation  system, or  (3) undesired surface runoff
from the site.  Both surface water quality and rate of flow may be influenced.
Changes in water quality will be regulated by federal, state,  or regional
standards.  Effects on surface water flow should be investigated both with
respect to possible increased and decreased rates of flow.  Wastewater reuse
                                     84
-------
systems,  used to replace systems previously discharging to a surface water,
will result in decreased flows with possible adverse consequences to previous
downstream users, or existing fisheries.

F.I.d.  Animal  and Insect Life

Treatment by land application may result in changes in conditions, either
favorably or adversly affecting certain indigenous terrestrial or aquatic
species.  Beneficial effects, such as the increased nutritive value of animal
forage, should be compared to possible adverse effects, such as the disrup-
tion of natural habitat, for each species of concern.  Little information exists
on this subject,  but Sopper  [148] reports some initial findings.   The possi-
bility of insects  or rodents acting as disease vectors is discussed separately
under Public Health Effects (I-F.2.b.).

F.l.e.  Air Quality

Air quality may  possibly be affected through the formation of aerosols from
spray systems and through odors.  With aerosols,  the primary  concern is
with transmission of pathogens, which will be discussed further under
Public Health Effects.   Odors are caused principally by anaerobic conditions
at the site or in  the applied wastewater.   Correction of these conditions is the
only permanent cure.

F.l.f.  Climate

Land-application systems, particularly large irrigation or overland flow
systems,  may have a limited but noticeable effect on the local climate.  Air
passing over a site will pick up moisture and be cooled, resulting in a local-
ized reduction in temperature.  Original conditions are normally regained
within a short distance from the site [125].

F.2.  PUBLIC HEALTH EFFECTS

When evaluating the overall environmental impact of an alternative, special
consideration should be given to those effects that relate directly to the
public health.  In many cases, state health regulations and guidelines serve
to protect against many of the effects.  Public health effects that should be
considered include:  groundwater quality, insects and rodents, runoff from
site, aerosols, and contamination of crops.  Overviews of public health
effects that may be helpful are contained in references [13,  130, 143, 152].

F. 2. a.  Groundwater Quality

The quality of the groundwater will be of major concern when it is to be used
as a potable water supply, particularly when an infiltration-percolation
system is planned.  A sufficient degree of renovation will be required to
                                    85
-------
meet the BPT requirements for groundwater protection.  Nitrates are the
most common problem, but other constituents, including stable organics,
dissolved salts, trace elements, and pathogens should be considered.
Extensive monitoring and control practices must be planned.

F.2.b.  Insects and Rodents

Because of the possibility of contamination from pathogens in the wastewater,
the control of insects and rodents on a land-application site is more critical
than on  a conventional irrigation site.  Conventional methods of control will
normally be required for most pests.

Mosquitoes are a special problem because they will propagate in water stand-
ing for only a few days.  Elimination of unnecessary standing water and
sufficient drying periods between applications  are the most effective methods
of control.

F. 2 ^c.  Runoff from Site

Applied effluent should not be allowed to run off the site except in systems
designed for  surface runoff  (e.g.,  overland  flow).  The extent to which
runoff from storm events must be controlled depends upon the water quality
objectives of the surface water and the possible effects of such runoff on
water quality.  Few data are available to assess storm runoff effects from
land-application sites.

F.2.d.  Aerosols

Generally, the danger of aerosols lies in their potential for the transmission
of pathogens.  Aerosols are microscopic droplets that conceivably could be
inhaled  into the throat and lungs.  Aerosol travel and pathogen survival rate
are dependent on several factors, including  wind, temperature,  humidity,
vegetative screens, and other  factors. Methods of reduction should be
employed to ensure that transmission of aerosols is minimized, with probable
travel under normal conditions being limited to an acceptable area.  This
area should be determined on the basis of the proximity of public access.
Sorber [152] and Sepp [143] present discussions of this issue and discuss the
research on the subject.

Safeguard measures that may be employed against aerosol transmission
include:

     •    Buffer zones around the field area

     •    Sprinklers that spray laterally or downward with low nozzle
          pressure
                                     86
-------
      •   Rows of trees or shrubs

      •   Cessation of spraying or spraying only interior plots during high
          winds

      •   Combinations of the enumerated measures with adequate disinfection

F. 2. e.  C ontamination of C rops

The effect of effluent irrigation on crops, with regard to safety for consump-
tion,  is a matter of some concern.  Many states have regulations dealing
with the types of crops that may be irrigated with wastewater, degrees of
preapplication treatment required for various crops, and purposes for which
the crops may be used.  The proposed California regulations are included in
Appendix E, and are offered as an example.  Individual state health depart-
ments should be consulted, since regulations vary widely from state to state.
Additional information on the contamination of crops may be found in Sepp
[143], Rudolfs [135], and Bernarde [13], or by contacting the FDA or other
applicable agencies.

F.3.  SOCIAL IMP ACT

The overall effects of the  proposed system should be evaluated in light of their
impact on the sociological aspects of the community.  Included in the evalua-
tion should be considerations of:  relocation of residents, effects on green-
belts  and open space, effects on recreational activities,  effects on community
growth, and effects on the quality of life.

F. 3. a.  Relocation of Residents
The requirement for large quantities of land, particularly for irrigation and
overland flow systems, often necessitates the purchase of land and possibly
the relocation of residents.  For federally funded projects, the acquisition
of land and relocation of residents must be conducted in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
In such cases, the advantages of the proposed treatment system must be
weighed against the inconvenience  caused affected residents, and then com-
pared with other alternatives.

F.S.b.  Greenbelts and Open Spaces

Proposed treatment systems should be evaluated from an aesthetic point of
view and with respect to the creation or destruction of greenbelts and open
spaces.  Disruption of the local scenic character is often unnecessary and
undesirable,  while through proper design and planning, the beauty of the
landscape can often be enhanced.  Reforestation and reclamation of disturbed
                                    87
-------
areas, such as those resulting from strip mining operations, are possible
beneficial effects.

F. 3. c.  Recreational Activities

The net result of the treatment system on recreational facilities should be
considered.  Existing open space or parks may be disrupted; however,  other
recreational areas may be created or upgraded.  Irrigation of new parks or
golf courses and recreational use of renovated water are possibilities for
increasing the overall value of a proposed treatment system.

F. 3. d.  Community Growth

The effects of a new treatment system may stimulate or discourage the growth
of  a community, both in terms of economics and population.  Often,  improved
wastewater treatment service may allow new construction or expansion in the
service area.  Such growth may  consequently tax other existing community
services.   The potential of the treatment system for affecting community
growth should be evaluated, and  the subsequent effects on other aspects of the
community documented.

F.4.  ECONOMIC IMPACT

An evaluation  of the economic impact should include an analysis of all economic
factors directly and indirectly affected by the treatment system.  Many factors
common to conventional systems apply; however, additional factors may be
applicable to  various land-application systems. Possible additional factors
include:

      •    Change in value of the land used and adjacent lands

      •    Loss of tax revenues as  a result of governmental purchase

      •    Conservation of resources and energy

      •    Change in quality of ground or surface waters

      •    Availability of an inexpensive source of water for irrigation

The effect of the treatment system on the overall local economy should then
be appraised,  especially with respect to financing and the availability of funds
for the long-term operation and maintenance of the system.
                                 88
-------
                                 Section G

                       IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Selection of the best alternative must be based on an assessment of the cost-
effectiveness and the overall impact of the alternatives for wastewater
management.  To ensure that the best system is selected by the decision
makers, all aspects of the alternatives should be made available for public
review and evaluation, including the engineer's recommendation.  Re-
evaluation and modification of the plans may be necessary before a system
is selected and general acceptance is received.  A long-range wastewater
management plan should be included with the implementation schedule.

G.I.  PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM

The establishment of an extensive public  information program at the earliest
possible time is wise, especially when alternatives under  consideration
may be  controversial.  Public involvement to the maximum possible extent
should be sought, with feedback to planners and decision makers.

G.I.a.  Approaches to Public Presentation

In many cases, public opposition to proposed land-application systems can be
related  to lack of knowledge or understanding of the fundamentals involved.
Consequently, a well-planned information and education program is highly
desirable, and in many cases, required.  Effective presentation will usually
entail a combination of some or all of the following approaches.

G. 1. a. 1.  Local Officials - Close liasion should be maintained with all local
officials who may be directly or indirectly concerned with the project or its
effects.   The maximum amount of useful information should be passed on to
these  officials at the earliest possible time to ensure their thorough under-
standing and continuing support.  Properly informed officials may in turn
become  useful and integral members of the public information program
through  public addresses and contacts with various citizen and special-
interest groups.

G. 1. a. 2.  Public Hearings - Public hearings, which are required for most
projects, allow individuals and representatives  of groups to speak and
present  written statements of their viewpoints.  These hearings should be
conducted in accordance with Public Participation in Water Pollution Programs
(40 CFR 105).

Notification of the hearing should be extensive and in addition to advertise-
ments in the mass media should include notification by mail to all groups,
                                  89
-------
agencies, and individuals who may have an interest.  To ensure that key
decision makers are present, personal telephone invitations may be necessary.
The hearing should be recorded and should be followed up by resolution of
disagreements, corrections of deficiencies, additional hearings,  or any
other measures that may be necessary.

G.I.a.3. Mass Media — The mass media, including local newspapers,  radio,
and television may be helpful in dissemination of general information through
articles, special features,  and interviews,  Additionally,  the mass media
should be utilized for notification and advertisement of hearings and other
public meetings.

G.I.a.4. Local Residents and Landowners - Local residents and landowners,
who may be displaced by the project, and those who are to be its  neighbors
must be kept informed of current planning.  Special information programs,
through letters, special meetings, and other means, are often necessary to
minimize opposition and to preclude possible legal conflicts that may result
from unwarranted assumptions and fears.

G. 1. a. 5. Special-Interest Groups — A wide variety of special-interest
groups — including sportsmen's clubs, conservation groups, and taxpayer
organizations - may be concerned with the project and its effects.  Areas
of concern will be widely varied, but every effort should be made to anticipate
them and to address them at the earliest possible stage.  Many well-informed
special-interest groups can be expected to add their support to the intended
project and may be valuable in helping to continue the public information
program.

G. 1. b.   Public Opinion

Public opinion may be  expressed by  various means,  including: reaction at
public hearings, statements of various groups, letters, polls,  and elections.
Expression of public opinion should be encouraged at an early stage so that
adequate consideration and response may be given to areas of concern.
Every effort should be made to ensure that all areas of concern are met with
reasonable responses based on a review of the project plans.  Responses
may be either explanations and justifications or modifications to the portions
of the plan in question.

G. 2.  LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Legal conflicts may sometimes be unavoidable in the implementation of land-
application systems, particularly in the areas of land acquisition and water
rights.   To avoid later problems legal counsel may be desirable early in the
planning stage to outline legal constraints and ensure the overall legality of
the project.  Possible  areas of conflict should be anticipated and settled as
quickly as possible.
                                    90
-------
G.3.  REE VALUATION OF ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT PROJECT

Prior to the submission of the facilities  plan, the entire project should be
reviewed and reevaluated.  Considerations,  such as public opinion, legal
conflicts,  and method of financing including the possible need for bond elec-
tions, should be weighed against alternative concepts.  The overall effect of
these considerations on the ability to implement the project should be assessed.

G.4.  IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

An implementation schedule is necessary to  ensure orderly progress toward
completion of the project and to set up a long-range management plan.  The
long-range plan must be formulated to ensure that the recommended courses
of action for wastewater management are carried out in an orderly manner
throughout the planning period.  It is also imperative that the management plan
be designed so that technical and operational changes can be incorporated as
necessary during the planning period.

For construction purposes, the schedule should include goals for both begin-
ning and completion dates  for various stages of the project.  All key dates and
project  stage sequences should be shown graphically for ease in understanding.

The implementation program should also document the steps in financing of
the system costs.  Users charges and industrial cost recovery are required
for all projects receiving federal funds (40 CFR 35 regulations in the Federal
Register,  August 21, 1973, and February 11, 1974).  Costs that are eligible
for grant funding must be identified.  Costs to be borne by the community
should be indicated on a per capita basis, with repayment and cost-sharing
by industries included.  These are crucial issues in which the public will be
most interested.
                                   91
-------
           PART II

     DESIGN PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS
-------
                                Section A

                   AGREEMENT WITH FACILITIES PLAN
When reviewing the design plans and specifications, the evaluator should have
a clear understanding of the facilities plan and its relationship to the design.
The engineer should include a statement with the design package concerning
agreement with the facilities plan especially with regard to:

      •   Area for application

      •   Critical loading rate

      •   Degree of treatment

      •   Storage volume

The design should conform as closely as possible to the facilities plan; however,
modifications may be necessary or desirable as the project is  studied further,
and more data become available. Reevaluation of the plan, in  whole or in part,
may also be necessary.

A.I.  MODIFICATIONS

Modifications and refinement of the facilities plan are often necessary and can
occur for a variety of reasons.  They may be the result of a pilot study, further
detailed site investigations, or a change in project goals.

Modifications to any one system component should be evaluated relative to their
effects on the entire system and on the other components.  For example, a
decision to change the type of  crop grown in an irrigation system may be based
on preapplication treatment considerations.  The change in crops will, in turn,
necessitate a reevaluation of such factors as loading rates, nutrient removals,
storage requirements, manpower requirements,  and economic considerations.

To demonstrate expected treatment results in special cases, such as for overland
flow,  pilot studies may be necessary.  This should be a relatively rare occur-
rence for land-application approaches such as irrigation or infiltration-percolation.
The extra cost of a pilot study and the subsequent delay of project implementation
must be well justified.

If pilot studies have been conducted,  summaries  of results should be required
either as a supplement to  the facilities plan or as supporting material for the
design plans and specifications. These results may form the basis of modifica-
tions or support to the facilities plan.
                                     93
-------
When departures from the original concept have been made for any reason,
justifications, new data,  and computations should be required.  This informa-
tion should be included in either a supplement to the facilities plan or as
supporting material with the plans  and specifications,  and should be reviewed
with respect to the applicable considerations from Parts I and II of this publi-
cation.

A. 2.  REEVALUATION OF FACILITIES PLAN

In some cases, a complete reevaluation of the facilities plan may be necessary
when changing conditions, new information, or unanticipated problems create
doubts as to the suitability of the system.  Further modifications or reconsidera-
tion of previously eliminated treatment alternatives may be required.  Areas
of primary concern include: changes in conditions and treatment requirements
that have occurred during the interim period and results from any pilot studies.

Changes in conditions and treatment requirements may be the result of new
federal or state regulations or changes in basin water-quality management plans
(40  CFR 131) or areawide wastewater treatment plans (40 CFR 35. 1050).
Areas that may be affected include: (1) both groundwater and surface-water
discharge requirements, (2) public health regulations with regard to pre-
application, crop selection, or  application techniques,  and (3) land-use or
zoning regulations.

Major problems with the proposed  system may be identified during pilot
studies.  Solution of these problems may be possible by changing design
criteria, process equipment, or management techniques.  On the other hand,
the  entire facilities plan may have  to be reevaluated and another alternative
pursued.
                                     94
-------
                                  Section B
                          SITE CHARACTERISTICS


In this section, details concerning site characteristics that should be considered
when reviewing the plans and specifications are discussed with respect to topog-
raphy, soils,  and geohydrology.  In most cases, a considerable amount of data
on site characteristics will have been collected and analyzed during the planning
stage of the project and will have been included in the facilities plan (I-C.),
Frequently, the  scope and degree of detail of this information is sufficient for
design purposes and it does not need to be repeated in material  supplied to the
evaluator.   In other cases, additional information and more detailed analyses
may be required.  When this additional information is used as a basis for design,
its submission — in the form of either a supplement to the facilities plan or as
supporting material with the plans and specifications - should be required.   Eval-
uation of this additional material should be with respect to considerations addressed
in both this section and in Section I-C.

B.I.  TOPOGRAPHY

A fairly detailed analysis of the topography of the site and adjacent land will have
been conducted during ths planning  stage.  In the design stage, however, addi-
tional information may be required as plans are developed.  Use of aerial or
ground surveys may be required to produce detailed plans for earthwork and site
preparation.  The site topography,  as altered by construction, earthwork, and
field preparation, should be analyzed for drainage patterns and erosion potential.

B. 1. a.  Site Plan

In almost all cases, a set of large-scale site plans will be required.  The scale of
the drawings will vary with the size and complexity of the project; however,
1 inch = 50 feet, with 2-foot contour intervals is considered reasonable for most
projects.   Features that should be included are:

      • Topography of the site

      • Property boundaries

      • Application areas

      • Transmission and distribution systems

      • Buffer zones

      • Drainage systems and surface water bodies

      • Storage areas
                                       95
-------
      •  Preapplication treatment facilities

      •  Monitoring points, wells, and springs

      •  Roads, buildings, pumping stations, etc.

Additional plans may be necessary to show greater detail of certain features or a
greater amount of surrounding land.   They will often be required for drainage
studies and for the exact location of transmission lines.

B. l.b.  Effects of Adjacent Topography

The adjacent topography should be evaluated for its effects on the site, particu-
larly with respect to drainage. Adjacent land characteristics that may potentially
(1) add stormwater runoff to the site, (2) back up water onto the site,  (3) provide
relief drainage, or (4) cause appearance of groundwater seeps, should be identified.
In most cases, the first two conditions are highly undesirable, and corrective
measures, such as interceptor ditches or drainage systems, must be employed.

B. 1. c.  Erosion Prevention

The topography of the site and adjacent land should be evaluated for areas of poten-
tial erosion,  and the plans should be checked for provisions for erosion control.
The effects of both applied wastewater and storm runoff should be considered.
Special consideration should be given to  the period  of construction and system
startup, when vegetative cover may be lacking or not fully developed.  Erosion
control procedures are documented in a  recent report for EPA [128].

B. 1. d.  Earthwork Required

Earthwork details should be presented for both (1) field preparation, and (2) facil-
ities, such as transmission lines, storage, and roads. Earthwork required for
field preparation may include:

      •  Clearing  of existing vegetation and debris

      •  Leveling, sloping, or grading of application area

      •  Spreading or storage basin construction

      •  Construction of dikes, levees, etc.

      •  Drainage and collection  ditches, and erosion-control  measures
                                      96
-------
The amount of earthwork required will be highly varied and will be dependent on
the type of system and the existing topography.  For many systems, particularly
those employing overland flow, earthwork may be one of the largest construction
cost components.  Where topsoil is shallow, it may be necessary to stockpile
topsoil for redistribution after the grading of underlying soil has been completed.

B. 1. e.  Disposal of Trees,  Brush, and Debris

A special consideration during construction and field preparation is the method of
disposal for trees,  brush, debris, and other cleared material.  This may present
a significant problem, particularly for projects in which large amounts of pre-
viously unused or uncultivated land are to be used.  The most important concern
is that of the environmental impact,  especially if disposal is to be accomplished
by burning.  An acceptable method of disposal should be included in the
specifications.

B.2.  SOIL

For some land-application systems, the analysis of soil characteristics conducted
during the planning stage will be sufficient for design purposes and reported mate-
rial need not be  repeated with the design package.  Additional information that may
be required for design is discussed in following subsections.  Infiltration and per-
colation rates are discussed separately in the section  on Design Criteria (II-C).

B.2.a.  Soil Maps

Soil maps should be included with design plans for land-application systems, un-
less previously submitted in the facilities plan.  Although the generalized SCS soil
maps contain a large amount of useful data on soils, they may not be detailed or
specific enough for design purposes.  The use of soil maps for the presentation of
soil data may be extremely helpful, particularly where soil characteristics are
varied over the site.  Existing soil maps may be used, or maps can be prepared
showing variations in characteristics such as:  (1) soil type, (2) infiltration and
percolation potentials, (3) physical and chemical characteristics, and (4) soil
depths.

B.2.b.  Soil Profiles

A detailed description and analysis of the soil profile will frequently be necessary
for design purposes,  particularly if a large amount of percolation is planned, and
where the effects of lower soil layers are of concern.  Minimum soil profile
depths to be evaluated by the designer, as suggested earlier (I-C) are:

      • 2 to 5 feet (0.61 to 1.52 m) for overland flow

      • At least 5 feet (1.52 m) for irrigation

      • At least 10 feet (3.05 m) for infiltration-percolation
                                      97
-------
The required data may be obtained from SCS soil surveys, borings or test pits,
or well-driller logs.  If obtained from SCS surveys, the descriptions of the soil
profiles will generally include:  (1) the location on the site where the profile was
determined, (2) mechanical classification, pK, salinity, and percent sodium for
each layer of soil encountered, (3) the depth of each layer, and (4) the percolation
rate expected.  Additional soil analyses from the series of tests suggested in
I-C. 2. c. 1 may also be required. In many cases,  soil profiles must be deter-
mined at a number of locations,  particularly where soil characteristics are
varied over the site.  Analysis of the underlying soil should be conducted pri-
marily with respect to those properties affecting renovation capabilities and
percolation potential (permeability for those soil layers that  are to be saturated).
The need for soil amendments such as lime or fertilizer in the topsoil should be
determined.

B.3.  GEOHYDROLOGY

The extent to which geohydrologic conditions should be considered during design
will be dependent on the method  of application to be employed and the type and
severity of conditions known to exist.  Generally,  a detailed  analysis of the site
geology and groundwater conditions will be necessary for infiltration-percolation
and high-rate irrigation systems, where large amounts of percolating water may
greatly affect the groundwater.  When potentially adverse conditions, such as
geologic discontinuities,  perched water, and seasonally high water tables, are
indicated during the preliminary site investigation, additional analysis and con-
sideration may be necessary during design.

B. 3. a.  Map of Important Geologic Formations

A map of the important geologic formations underlying the site will be necessary
where the formations may possibly affect the renovation of the percolating waste-
water or the groundwater flow.  Formations and features that should be shown on the
maps or drawings that accompany the design package, when of significance, include:

      •  Depth to bedrock

      •  Lithology of bedrock

      •  Outcrops

      •  Glacial deposits

      •  Discontinuities, such as faults, joints, fractures, and sinkholes

When the underlying geologic conditions are relatively uniform, or when they are
of little significance a map will usually not be necessary.
                                       98
-------
 B.3.b. Analysis of Geologic Discontinuities

 The presence of geologic discontinuities, such as faults, joints, fractures, and
 sinkholes, is cause for special concern because short-circuiting of the percolating
 wastewater may occur.  In most cases,  sites where geological  formations contain
 severe discontinuities should have been eliminated from consideration during the
 preliminary site investigation; however, acceptable land-application  systems may
 be possible where:  (1) short-circuiting of the percolate to the groundwater occurs
 after sufficient renovation, and (2) the condition of the discontinuity is not expected
 to worsen.  The first condition can usually be met if a sufficient soil horizon
 exists above the discontinuity.   Suggested minimum depths of the soil horizon
 above discontinuities are:

      •  2 feet (0.61 m) for overland flow

      •  5 feet (L. 52 m) for irrigation

      •  15 feet (4.57 m) for infiltration-percolation systems

With regard to the second condition, the probability that discontinuities will not be
 aggravated as a result of the land-application system must be assessed.  When the
site is underlain with limestone, discontinuities may well be aggravated.  Existing
sinkholes may be enlarged and new ones created as a result of the percolating
wastewater.

B. 3. c.  Groundwater Analysis

A detailed groundwater analysis will be necessary for design purposes, particularly
for infiltration-percolation and high-rate irrigation systems.  Factors that should
be considered include:  (1) existing quality of the groundwater and required quality
of the percolate  with respect to the BPT requirements for groundwater protection [3],
 (2) the extent of the recharge mound,  (3) the need for underdrainage or pumped
withdrawal,  (4) the probability of the groundwater reaching levels that may interfere
with efficient renovation (see I-C. 2. e. 1), (5) the effects of the system on direction
and rate of groundwater flow and, (6) the degree of monitoring required.  Potential
adverse effects on the groundwater identified in the planning stage (I-F) should be
reviewed, and means of control employed in the design.
                                     99
-------
                                 Section C

                             DESIGN CRITERIA


The following factors should be considered in the design of a land-application
system:

      • Climatic factors

      • Infiltration and percolation rates

      • Loading rates

      • Land requirements

      • Application rates and cycle

      • Crops

      • System components

      • Flexibility

      • Reliability

It must be reemphasized that land-application system designs are site-specific
and that design criteria must be based on the conditions of the particular site.
In evaluating a design, the following points should be considered:

      • The validity of design assumptions

      • Compatibility with site conditions

      • Completeness and degree of detail

      • Ability to meet project objectives

In most cases, design criteria used as a basis for the plans and specifications
will have been included in the facilities plan  (I-E); however, greater detail, re-
finements, and modifications will often be necessary.  Submission of supporting
material for these refinements and modifications — either along with the plans
and specifications or by means of a supplement to the facilities  plan  — should be
required.   This supporting material should be  reviewed with respect to consid-
erations addressed in this section and Section I-E.,  and then used as a basis
for evaluating the plans and specifications.  Sample listings of design criteria
for irrigation, infiltration-percolation, and overland flow systems are included
in Appendix D.
                                     101
-------
C. 1.  CLIMATIC FACTORS

Design assumptions must be reviewed with regard to each climatic factor.  For
example, if a particular  system is to be designed so that no runoff from the site
results from a 5-year storm,  the intensity of that  storm should have been de-
termined and used as a basis for design.  Climatic conditions must usually be
considered with respect to precipitation, temperature, and wind.

C. 1. a.  Precipitation

Precipitation, including rainfall, snow, and hail, will affect a number of design
components such  as:  (1) liquid loading rates,  (2) storage  requirements, and
(3) drainage system requirements.  Precipitation data that  will normally be
required for design include:

      •  Total annual precipitation

      •  Maximum and minimum annual precipitation

      •  Monthly distribution of precipitation

      •  Storm intensities

      •  Effects of snow

C. 1. a. 1.  Total Annual Precipitation — The total annual precipitation used for
design purposes should normally be estimated from a frequency analysis of
precipitation data over the period of record (I-C.2.a).  In most cases, precipi-
tation from  a wetter-than-normal year must be assumed, particularly where
liquid overloading of the  system may be a potential problem.  The total annual
precipitation for the wettest year in 10 is  suggested as reasonable for most
systems, although the wettest year in 50 or higher may be desirable for estimat-
ing storage  requirements.

C. 1. a. 2.  Maximum and Minimum Annual Precipitation — In many cases, the
maximum and minimum annual precipitation on record will  be of significance.
For example, a considerable difference between the design  precipitation and the
maximum precipitation on record may require that special provisions for drain-
age be made.  Minimum  amounts of precipitation may be of interest for certain
irrigation systems, where design liquid loadings are low and the applied waste-
water alone would not be sufficient for optimum vegetation growth. In such
cases, a plan for reduced crop acreage or for supplemental irrigation water
should be included.

C. 1. a. 3.  Monthly Distribution of Precipitation —  The distribution of precipita-
tion over the year should be expressed as the amount of precipitation per month
for the design year.   Seasonal variations  in application  rates and storage re-
quirements  will be based on an analysis of the monthly distribution.
                                   102
-------
C. 1.a.4.  Storm Intensities - Storm intensities, normally expressed in inches/
hour, must be estimated for the design of drainage and runoff collection sys-
tems.  This estimation will normally be made on the basis of a frequency analy-
sis and a design storm event will be selected and analyzed for the amount of
runoff.

C. 1. a. 5.  Effects of Snow — In regions where accumulation of snow is probable,
the effect of snow conditions must be evaluated.  Important data that may be re-
quired include:  (1)  total amount of snowfall,  (2) maximum expected depth,
and  (3) the period of snow cover.

C. 1. b.  Temperature

Temperature, through its influence on various renovation mechanisms and on
plant growth, will affect liquid loading rates and the period of operation. Tem-
perature data that may be necessary for design include:

      • Monthly or seasonal averages and variations

      • Length of growing season

      • Period of freezing conditions

C. l.b. 1.  Monthly Averages and Variations — The range of temperatures that
prevail at the site should be expressed in terms  of monthly or seasonal averages
and variations.  In many cases,  where cold weather may require a reduction or
cessation of application,  design temperatures should be based on a frequency
analysis of colder-than-normal conditions.

C. l.b. 2.  Length of Growing Season — An estimation of the length of the growing-
season will be necessary for irrigation and overland flow systems and for those
infiltration-percolation systems  with vegetated basin surfaces.  Because the
length of the season will vary with the crop, the  Agricultural Extension Service
should be consulted.

C. l.b. 3.  Period of Freezing Conditions — The period when application of waste-
water must be reduced or ceased as a result of freezing conditions must be
estimated.   Freezing conditions  may include the period when the ground is
frozen or the period between the first and last frosts of the season.

C.l.c.  Wind

For spray application systems, an analysis of the wind will be necessary for
design.  Wind conditions that require a reduction or temporary cessation of
application should be determined with respect to velocity and direction. The
frequency and duration of those conditions should then be estimated by means
of a frequency analysis.
                                    103
-------
C. 2.  INFILTRATION AND PERCOLATION RATES

Infiltration and percolation rates are included in this section rather than the
previous one (Site Characteristics) because of their direct relationship to the
design of the system.  Design rates must be determined for use in subsequent
design calculations such as application rates and drainage system requirements.

C. 2. a.  Design Rates
Design infiltration and percolation rates should be determined from data ob-
tained in the preliminary site investigation (I-C.2. c. 2) and from additional
studies where required.  Other soil characteristics (II-B. 2) and geohydrologic
factors  (II-B. 3) must be evaluated for their effects on percolation rates.  Con-
ditions that maybe expected to periodically inhibit infiltration or percolation,
such as cold weather or prolonged periods of soil wetting,  should be assumed
in the determination of design rates.  Requirements for periodic drying or rest-
ing periods should be included.

C.2.b.  Basis of Determination

The basis used to determine the design  infiltration and percolation rates, and
the results of any studies or analyses involved,  should be evaluated.  Design
rates should be based on at least one or more of the following analyses or con-
sultation services:

      •  Analysis by Agricultural Extension Service or soil specialists

      •  Analysis of soil borings and profiles

      •  Analysis of SCS soil surveys

      •  From farming experience

      •  From results  of pilot studies

C.3.  LOADING RATES

Loading rates for the liquid applied and the major constituents of the waste-
water will form the basis for the design determination of land requirements,
application rates, and  crop selection  (for irrigation and overland flow).  Load-
ing rates  computed in the preliminary planning stage  (E-E. 1) should be  reviewed
and possibly revised to reflect changes  in the  wastewater characteristics or in
the application rates.
                                     104
-------
C. 3. a.  List of Loading Rates

Loading rates that form the basis of the design are to be included in the design
criteria (see Appendix D) for the specific land-application system.

Elements  or constituents of concern should include any which may potentially
cause short- or long-term problems for the specific system, or whose concen-
trations in the renovated water may reach or exceed water-quality standards.

C. 3.b.  Critical Loading Rate

The loading rate identified in the planning stage as being critical (I-E. 2. a.) will
be used in the determination of the application area and other design factors,
such as crop selection. The  critical loading rate should be highlighted with an
asterisk on the design criteria listings (Appendix D).

C.4.  LAND REQUIREMENTS

Land requirements must be identified for each of the following components:

      • Application area

      • Buffer zones

      • Storage

      • Preapplication treatment, buildings, and roads

      • Future and emergency needs

Land for each component should be designated on the site plan.  Additionally,
methods of determination and calculations should generally be reviewed,
particularly those for the application area.

The land required for the direct application and treatment of the wastewater
will be calculated from the design critical loading rate as described in para-
graph I-E. 2.a.  A distinction should be made between the wetted and field
acres where the distinction is significant, as is the case for  all overland flow
and some irrigation systems. Individual plots or basins that are to be operated
as units in a rotation cycle should be identified and numbered.

C. 5.  APPLICATION RATES AND CYCLE

The design application rates and the schedule of application periods should be
reviewed  and related to the determination of land and storage requirements and
to the design of the distribution system (I-C. 7.d.).  Factors and considerations
relating to their derivation are discussed below.
                                      105
-------
C. 5. a.  Annual Liquid Loading Rate

The design annual liquid loading rate (ft/yr) should be identified (II-C. 3.).  All
application rates with respect to smaller units of time  (e.g., in. /wk) should be
derived from or be compatible with the annual loading.

C. 5.b.  Length of Operating Season

The length of the operating system may vary from year-round for many
infiltration-percolation systems to as little as 5 or 6 months for some irriga-
tion systems.

C. 5. c.  Application Cycle

The application cycle, or the combination of application and resting periods,
should be defined in the form of an operating schedule.  The length of the cycle
and the  ratio of wetting to drying depends on site-specific factors (I-E. l.d.)
and may include seasonal variations.  Common cycle lengths are:

      •  1 week for irrigation, with a range from 2 days to 6 weeks

      •  1 day for overland flow, with a range from 12  hours to 2 days

      •  3 weeks for infiltration-percolation, with a range from a few days to
        a month

C. 5. c. 1.  Application Period and Rates - The application or wetting period of
the cycle should be listed along with the rate of application. Application rates
should normally be expressed in terms of quantity of wastewater applied per
cycle, and for spray applications the hourly rate should be listed.  The latter
rate is particularly important for spray systems because high applications may
be damaging to the soil surface.

C. 5.C.2.  Weekly Application Rates - When the application cycle is other than
one week, the additional inclusion of the  average weekly rate may be helpful for
evaluation.  Weekly rates are often used as standards  for comparison of similar
systems and frequently appear in the literature.

C. 5. c. 3.  Resting or Drying Period — Resting or drying periods are necessary
to reestablish aerobic conditions.  They  should be included as an integral part
of the application cycle. Optimum resting periods range from one day or less
for some irrigation and overland flow systems up to 20 days for some
infiltration-percolation systems. In many cases, longer resting periods are
required during the winter months.
                                     106
-------
C. 5. c. 4.  Rotation of Plots or Basins — To maintain continuous operation and
a steady usage of effluent,  it is usually advisable to subdivide the application
area into a number of independent plots or basins.  Wastewater can then be
applied to a portion of the area while the remainder is rested or dried.  Pro-
vision for plot or basin rotation  should be included in the plans.

C.6.  CROPS/VEGETATION

A description of the crops or vegetation to be grown will be required in the
facilities plan for all systems in which vegetation is to be an integral part of
the treatment system.   This includes all irrigation and overland flow systems,
and those infiltration-percolation systems  in which the infiltration surfaces are
to be vegetated.   Evaluations of  potential crops that were conducted during the
planning stage (I-E. 3.) should be reviewed, and important crop characteristics
and requirements that were used as a basis for design should be noted.  When
applicable, the following items should be considered:

      •  Compatibility of the crop with site characteristics and design loading
        rates

      •  Nutrient uptake

      •  Cultivation and harvesting requirements

      •  Suitability for meeting health criteria

C.7.  SYSTEM COMPONENTS

A large portion of the plans and  specifications will be devoted to the system
components,  such as:

      •  Preapplication treatment facilities

      •  Transmission facilities

      •  Storage  facilities

      •  Distribution system

      •  Recovery system

      •  Monitoring system

Design considerations and parameters developed in the planning stage should be
reviewed when applicable.   Detailed plans  for each component will be required
and should be evaluated with respect to  the considerations listed at the beginning
of this section.
                                    107
-------
C. 7.a.  Preapplication Treatment Facilities

Detailed plans of.the preapplication treatment facilities will be necessary in
almost all cases, except those few in which preapplication treatment is not re-
quired or existing facilities have been determined to be adequate.  In many
cases, plans for additions or modifications to existing facilities may be all that
are required. In all cases, the  expected treatment performance of the facilities
must be evaluated in light of the requirements established in the planning stage
(I-E.5.).

C.7.b.  Transmission Facilities

Detailed plans of the transmission facilities to the site, including piping and
pumping facilities, will be required.  They should be designed and reviewed in
accordance with conventional engineering standards, because they will rarely
differ from transmission facilities designed for conventional treatment systems.
Consideration must be given to factors such as adequate cover over the pipe for
protection, and provisions for flexible joints where the pipe is attached to rigid
structures.   In addition,  consideration must also be given to the purchase and
control of easements.

C. 7.c.  Storage Facilities

In almost all cases,  some sort-of storage facilities will be necessary, and de-
tailed plans for them will be required.  If storage is to be provided for winter
flows and storage requirements  are high, construction of storage facilities will
often be one of the major design components. The design volume should be
based on the storage requirements determined during the  planning stage
(I-E.4.).  The plans should be evaluated with respect to capacity and control of
potential problems, such as the  growth of unwanted aquatic life, odors resulting
from anaerobic conditions, and with respect to structural considerations, such
as embankment slope stability.  Storage facilities must include pump-back pro-
visions and adequate freeboard,  and it may possibly be necessary to seal them
to prevent percolation, depending upon groundwater conditions.

C.T.d.  Distribution System

The distribution system  may vary in complexity from  systems employing simply
gravity flow to infiltration basins to highly complex fixed  spray  irrigation sys-
tems.  Standard texts on irrigation [155, 184] provide much information on the
design of all types of distribution systems,  which may be useful to the reviewer.
Potential problems,  such as the clogging of nozzles with suspended solids and
the susceptibility of above-ground piping to damage by farm 'machinery, should
be anticipated, and mitigation provisions reviewed.
                                     108
-------
Spray Systems — Distribution for spraying is through pressure pipes or laterals
that run from the transmission main into the field.  Spray distribution systems
may be solid set, buried; solid set, portable; mechanically-moved laterals,
such as the side-roll wheel or end-tow type; or continuously moving units such
as center pivot systems [114].  Sprinkler irrigation handbooks [114, 115, 155]
should be consulted for hydraulic design information.  Special emphasis should
be given to the potential problems associated with risers, which are often sus-
ceptible to damage from a number of causes.

Surface Distribution Systems — For flood or ridge and furrow systems,  distri-
bution may be by means of open ditches, buried pipe with riser outlets,  or
gated pipe.  More detailed information may be found in Zimmerman [184].

Drainage of Lines — Drain valves are necessary for most distribution systems
to prevent (1) anaerobic conditions from occurring during nonapplication
periods,  and (2)  freezing and breaking of pipes in cold climates.   Drain
valves should be located at all low points in the system with gravel or tile
drains to accept the draining water.

System Controls — A schematic diagram of system controls including piping,
pumping, valves, timers, and alarms is necessary.  Valve operation and con-
trol may be automatic or manual or provisions may be made to operate under
either type of control.

C. 7. e.  Recovery System

Detailed plans should be submitted of any recovery system that is to be em-
ployed, such as:  underdrainage, pumped withdrawal, or collection of runoff
from overland flow systems. It should be evaluated with respect to recovery
objectives, site characteristics, and liquid loading rates.  Much useful infor-
mation on the design of recovery systems may be found in Drainage of Agri-
cultural Land [38], and in Bouwer [18, 19].

In cases in which natural drainage channels traverse the site some runoff
control features  may be required.  For irrigation systems these features would
be designed for system protection and readability.  Features could entail small
dams,  reservoirs, or diversion structures to collect or divert partially treated
effluent and prevent it from entering surface waters. The extent to which
runoff resulting from storms must be retained depends upon the water quality
objectives for the surface water, nonpoint source discharge control practices
in the hydrologic basin, and the nature and magnitude of the environmental
degradation that  might  result from the discharge.

C.T.f. Monitoring System

Some form of monitoring system will be required in all cases and should be
described in detail in the Operation and Maintenance Manual, Plans for physical
facilities, such as monitoring wells, sampling taps, and metering equipment,
however, should be included in the design and should reflect the monitoring re-
quirements specified in the preliminary plans (E-E. 6. c.).
                                    109
-------
C. 8.  DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

The design plans and specifications should be evaluated for flexibility with
respect to:

      • Provisions for system expansion

      • Provisions for system modification

      • Interconnections and partial isolation

Specific flexibility features identified in the wastewater management plan
([-E. 8.) should be incorporated in the design.

C. 8. a.  Provisions for System Expansion

Provisions for both planned and unplanned expansion should be incorporated in
the design.  Staged construction will often be employed over the life of the sys-
tem to provide for planned expansion.  In other cases and for unplanned expan-
sion,  components may be designed for additional capacities or so that their
capacities may be easily increased.   Special consideration should be given to
critical components — such as: land availability; and storage, preapplication
treatment, and transmission capacities — which may be easily expandable only
up to a certain limit.

C. 8.b.  Provision for System Modification

Various modifications to the system can usually be expected to occur during the
life of the system and  if possible, should be anticipated in the design.  Gener-
ally, these modifications will be the result of:

      • Knowledge gained through operating experience

      • Changes in conditions or treatment requirements

      • Technological advances

Design factors,  such as loading rates, and physical equipment, such as pre-
application treatment and distribution facilities,  are among the items  that may
be subject to modification.

C. 8. c.  Interconnections and  Partial Isolation

Features, such as interconnections and partial isolation systems, the•'„ may add
to the flexibility of operation should be included in tne design when practicable.
Various interconnections within and between the transmission system, pre-
application treatment facilities, storage facilities, and distribution system are
                                     HO
-------
necessary so that components can be isolated for repair or maintenance.  The
design should also include provisions to allow the operator to modify operating
procedures for special conditions, and apply effluent to certain areas only.

C.9.  RELIABILITY

The Technical Bulletin on Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electrical, and
Fluid Systems and Component Reliability [35J establishes minimum standards
of reliability for three classes of wastewater treatment works.  The classes
are related to the consequences of degradation of the effluent quality on the re-
ceiving navigable waters.  Class I involves discharge to navigable waters that
could be permanently or unacceptably damaged by effluent that was degraded in
quality for only a few hours.   Reliability measures for this class include backup
requirements for most unit processes.  Class II relates to navigable waters
that would not be permanently or unacceptably damaged by short-term effluent
quality degradations,  but could be damaged by continued (on the order of several
days) degradation.  Class in involves navigable waters not otherwise classified
as Reliability Class I or H [35].

Land-application systems that produce an effluent with a point-source discharge
would have to attain a reliability commensurate to that of conventional treat-
ment and discharge systems discharging to Class I, II, or III navigable waters.
The degree of reliability required of land-application systems will depend on the
severity and consequences of environmental degradation or health effects
(t-F.l and F.2).  The California standards (Appendix E) relate reliability
measures for irrigation systems to the degree of public contact with the treated
effluent and the nature of the crop grown.

Various means of ensuring the reliability of the system, including factors of
safety, backup systems, and contingency provisions,  are discussed in the fol-
lowing paragraphs. An important additional reliability factor is the proper
operation  and maintenance of the system, which is discussed in Part IE.  Gen-
eral reliability requirements for all treatment systems are  included in Federal
Guidelines for Design, Operation and Maintenance of Waste  Water Treatment
Facilities [50],

C. 9. a.  Factors-of-Safety

Reasonable factors-of-safety must be included in design components whose
normal operation limits, if exceeded, might result in serious adverse effects
or impairment of  system efficiency.  Components that may require factors-
of-safety in their design include:  loading and application rates,  and the capaci-
ties for storage, transmission, and preapplication treatment. The magnitude
of the factors-of-safety to be employed will vary with the system and will depend
on a number of factors, such as:  the severity of potential adverse effects, and
degree of  certainty of design assumptions.  When employed, they should be
indicated and justified by the engineer.
                                     Ill
-------
C. 9.b.  Backup Systems

Backup systems or standby units must be provided for critical elements of the
system to preclude system failure resulting from:

     •  Loss of power supply

     •  Equipment failure

     •  Failure of a preapplication treatment unit

     •  Maintenance requirements

Elements that should be provided with backup systems include power sources,
pumping facilities, and preapplication treatment units (particularly chlorina-
tors).  Interconnections and flexibility of pumping and piping to permit re-
routing of flows will often be necessary also.

C. 9. c.  Contingency Provisions

Provisions must be made in the design for specific, unusual, or emergency
conditions that may occur at the  site, such as:

     •   Equipment or unit failure

     •  Natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, etc.)

     •  Severe weather

     •  Unexpected peak flows

The system must be evaluated to determine whether it can be operated satis-
factorily under these conditions.  Provisions  should be included to allow the
resumption of normal operation, such as emergency pumping or additional
storage capacity.
                                     112
-------
                                Section D

                EXPECTED TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
The expected treatment performance must be evaluated with respect to both
(1) removal efficiencies for major constituents, and  (2) remaining concen-
trations in the renovated water.  It should be predicted realistically based on
the method of application, degree of preapplication treatment,  site character-
istics, and design parameters.  Fluctuations in performance during loading
cycles or as a result of seasonal climatic variations,  should be considered.

D. 1.  REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR MAJOR CONSTITUENTS

The removal efficiencies, or the percentage reduction in concentration of each
of the major wastewater constituents must be estimated.  Removal efficiencies,
based on data derived from operating systems, that may be expected for well-
designed and properly maintained, irrigation, overland flow, and infiltration-
percolation  systems are given in Table 12.   Predicted efficiencies should be
estimated for each constituent, and a description of the removal mechanism,
particularly for constituents such as nitrogen, where removal efficiencies are
highly variable, should be included either in the project report or a supplement.
The values in Table 12 are presented for evaluation, not design purposes.  De-
sign values must be developed on a case-by-case basis.   Factors such as chang-
ing climatic conditions or changing operating procedures that may cause fluc-
tuations or permanent changes in the removal efficiencies should be identified.
Expected long-range changes,  such as those resulting from exhaustion of the
ion-exchange capacity of the soil, should be  identified and provisions made for
soil amendment additions, upgrading or  preapplication treatment, or cessation
of application.


            Table 12.   REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES OF MAJOR
    CONSTITUENTS FOR MUNICIPAL LAND-APPLICATION SYSTEMS

                                      Removal efficiency, %
                                       Application method
Constituent
BOD
COD
Suspended solids
Nitrogen (total as N)
Phosphorus (total as P)
Metals
Microorganisms
Irrigation
98+
95+
98+
85+
80-99
95+
98+
Overland
flow
92+
80+
92+
70-90
40-80
50+
98+
Infiltration-
percolation
85-99
50+
98+
0-50
60-95
50-95
98+
                                   113
-------
Expected removal efficiencies must be determined for each individual case
based on the wastewater characteristics, site characteristics,  and specific
design features.  For example,  consider phosphorus removal for an overland
flow system. Assuming that the total concentration  after preapplication treat-
ment is known,  what removal efficiency can be expected ?  Without pilot work
to serve as a basis for estimation, a review of the literature must be used.
Representative  reports dealing with phosphorus removal include those by Law
 [841, Kirby [76], Thomas [164], and Hunt [67].  To properly assess the ex-
pected removal, comparisons must be made of the systems described in the
literature with the system in question on the following points:

      • Total concentration applied to the land

      • Total annual loading, Ib/acre/yr

      • Percentage of applied wastewater appearing as runoff

      • Soil type

      • Evapotranspiration

      • Amount of percolation

      • Crop type and uptake of phosphorus

      • Was the crop removed from the field ?

      • Application cycle

      • Length of the runoff slope

      • Amount of rainfall during period of measurement

Obviously, few  of the conditions will be comparable  so that some engineering
judgment will be required.  Each removal mechanism (II-E. I.e.), such as
crop uptake, microbial uptake,  and fixation by the soil, must be investigated
and the expected removals estimated.

The process of  determining expected removal efficiencies can often be complex.
The degree of detail expected in  deriving these estimates will depend on the im-
pact of the constituent on the environment and the  concentration required in the
renovated water.
                                    114
-------
D.2.  REMAINING CONCENTRATIONS IN RENOVATED WATER

The remaining concentrations of the major constituents in the renovated water
should be determined from concentrations of the wastewater applied and the
predicted removal efficiencies.  They should be compared to the concentra-
tions required for the receiving waters, either groundwater or surface water,
or to requirements for further reuse.  Generally, to be acceptable, the con-
centrations should be well within the limits of stated requirements.
                                   115
-------
            PART III

     OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE MANUAL
-------
                                Section A

        EPA - CONSIDERATIONS FOR PREPARATION OF OPERATION
                      AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS
Operation and maintenance manuals should generally be prepared in accord-
ance with the suggested guidelines presented in the EPA publication Consider-
ations for Preparation of Operation and Maintenance Manuals f 61 ], which is
hereafter referred to as the  "Considerations Manual."  They should be
reviewed and evaluated by means  of the checklist included in the Considerations
Manual,  and with regard to special considerations for land-application sys-
tems presented in this and the following sections.

Discussion of the information that should be included in operations and
maintenance manuals for land-application systems is presented in the follow-
ing subsections by suggested chapter titles.  Detailed discussion of information
concerning operating procedures, monitoring,  and impact control is con-
tained in Sections B, C, and D. The format suggested herein and in the
Considerations Manual is intended to be flexible and may be modified to fit
the particular system at hand.  The uniqueness of many land-application
systems  must be reflected in the operation and maintenance manuals, and
greater-than-normal emphasis must be placed on their preparation, especi-
ally in the explanation of the unique aspects.

A.I.  INTRODUCTION

The introduction to an operation and maintenance manual should include:

      •   A manual user guide

      •   Summaries of operation and managerial responsibilities

      •   Description of the treatment concept employed and treatment
         requirements

      •   Explanation of flow patterns

A discussion of the contents  of the introductory chapter and examples showing
the scope of information that should be included is contained in the Consider-
ations Manual.

The description of treatment requirements should highlight requirements
with respect to groundwater  including meeting requirements of BPT for
groundwater protection, as well as effluent limitations for that portion of
the renovated water that may be recovered.
                                  117
-------
In many cases, a brief summary of basic land-application principles may be
helpful, particularly for users of the manual who have had experience only
with conventional treatment systems.

A. 2.  PERMITS AND STANDARDS

The chapter on permits and standards should include:

      •   Discharge permit and permit requirements (for point-source
          discharges)

      •   Reporting procedures for spills of raw or inadequately treated
          sewage

      •   Water-quality standards

The suggested contents of the chapter are discussed in the Considerations
Manual and are applicable,  at least in part, to most land-application systems.
Special consideration must be given to standards relating to the groundwater.

A. 3.  DESCRIPTION, OPERATION AND CONTROL OF WASTEWATER
       TREATMENT FACILITIES

This chapter will be the heart of the operation and maintenance manual in
which each component of the land-application system is described, and the
operation and control procedures are detailed.  The chapter should be sub-
divided by components, with the following subdivisions suggested for land-
application systems in place of those suggested on page 56 of the Considerations
Manual:

      •   Preapplication treatment facilities

      •   Transmission system

      •   Storage facilities

      •   Application of effluent

      •   Soils and plants

      •   Recovery systems

The major system components should be subdivided into units  to allow a
thorough description and to aid in understanding the interactions of the
various units.
                                    118
-------
Information that should be presented for each individual component includes:

      •   Description of component and major subcomponents

      •   Relationship to adjacent components

      •   Methods of control

      •   Startup

      •   Normal operation

      •   Common operating problems

      •   Alternate operation

      •   Emergency operations and failsafe procedures

      •   Monitoring and laboratory controls

The preceding list has been slightly modified from the one suggested in the
Considerations Manual; however,  the discussion and examples contained there-
in are generally applicable for land-application systems.  It is expected that
further modification will be necessary or desirable for various components of
many systems.

Additional considerations pertinent to the content of this chapter are discussed
in Sections B, C, and D.

A.4.  DESCRIPTION, OPERATION AND CONTROL OF SLUDGE-
      HANDLING FACILITIES

Sludge-handling facilities should be described and operating and control proce-
dures should  be outlined in this  chapter.  The extent and significance of the
chapter will be highly variable and will depend upon the method and degree of
preapplication treatment to be employed. In many cases, the entire chapter
may be unnecessary if sludge-handling facilities are not complex and are
included in the previous chapter (EH-A. 3.).
                                   119
-------
A. 5.  PERSONNEL

Personnel requirements should be discussed with respect to:

     •   Manpower requirements/staff

     •   Qualifications

     •   Certification

Consideration must be given to special skills and qualifications necessary for
land-application systems,  such as those relating to agricultural practices and
groundwater monitoring.  In all other respects, the discussion in the Consid-
erations Manual is generally applicable to land-application systems.

A. 6.  LABORATORY TESTING

The material to be presented on the laboratory testing program should
generally include:

     •   The purpose of the sampling program

     •   The sampling schedule

     •   The list of operation/laboratory references

     •   Interpretation of laboratory tests

     •   Sample laboratory worksheets

The suggested format and discussion of the laboratory testing program con-
tained in the Considerations  Manual are applicable in most respects to most
land-application systems; however, a wider range of tests,  such as those to
determine the uptake of certain constituents by crops, and various soils tests
are often necessary.  Additional specific considerations for land-application
systems are discussed later in Section C.

A. 7-A. 13.  REMAINING MANUAL CHAPTERS

The remaining chapters to be included in the operation and maintenance manual
will normally deal with:

     A.7.   Records

     A. 8.   Maintenance

     A. 9.   Emergency Operating and Response Program
                                  120
-------
     A. 10. Safety

     A. 11. Utilities

     A. 12. Electrical System

     A. 13. Appendixes

Each is discussed in detail in the Considerations Manual, and is generally
applicable to all wastewater treatment systems, including those employing
land application. Modification of the suggested format may be necessary or
desirable in many cases so that the manual may be tailored to fit each
system.
                                   121
-------
                                Section B

                        OPERATING PROCEDURES


A number of special topics concerning operating procedures for land-appli-
cation systems are discussed in this section, including:

      •   Application of effluent

      •   Agricultural practices

      •   Recovery of renovated water

      •   Storage

      •   Special problems and emergency conditions

Operating procedures for system components that are generally common to
conventional systems,  such as those for preapplication treatment facilities,
are not discussed.

B. 1.  APPLICATION OF EFFLUENT

The procedures for the application of effluent to the land must be  clearly
defined because many distribution systems will be unique and the  operators
must  be able to vary the application in response to environmental changes.
Descriptions of the application system and the operating procedure should be
included in Chapter 3 of the operation and maintenance manual. Considera-
tions  relating to both the distribution system and the schedule of application
are discussed in the following paragraphs.

B.I.a.  Distribution System

The distribution system should be described and the operating and control
procedures outlined in a manner similar to the other components, as described
previously in Subsection HI-A.3.  For most systems, including those for
overland flow and infiltration-percolation facilities, operating procedures
will be based primarily on  standard irrigation practices.  Standard references
on irrigation [115,  155, 184] should be consulted along with manufacturer's
operating instructions.  Valve sequences, operating pressures, startup and
shutdown procedures should be detailed. Solution of typical problems that
may be encountered with the distribution of wastewater, such as the clogging
of nozzles with suspended solids, should be included.
                                    123
-------
B. 1. b Schedule of Application

Because this portion of the manual will be referred to frequently, it is
imperative that application schedule details be presented clearly.  Effluent
application schedules should be presented in terms  of the rates, periods of
application and resting, and seasonal  variations as  developed in the design
(II-C. 6.).  Also included should be the sequence of  rotation of plots or basins,
seasonal variations in rotation,  and descriptions of conditions that may require
temporary cessation of application.  The range of acceptable application rates
and ratios of resting to wetting should be included as a guide to assist oper-
ators in making necessary operational changes.

B. 2.  AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

Operating procedures relating to agriculture will play a major role in the
operation of irrigation systems, and a lesser but still significant role for
overland flow and infiltration-percolation systems.  Procedures regarding
agricultural practices should normally be described under "soils and plants"
in Chapter 3  of the manual (IH-A. 3.).  Factors relating to agriculture that
are discussed in this  section include:

      •   Purpose of the crop

      •   Description of crop requirements

      •   Planting, cultivation, and harvesting

B. 2. a.  Purpose of the Crop

The purpose  for which vegetation is to be grown should be stated clearly in
the manual so that the system may be operated to best achieve that goal.  The
primary consideration of importance to the operator is whether optimization
of crop yields or maximization of renovation and effluent application is to be
emphasized.  Other desired results, such  as increased infiltration rates,
and combinations of desired results should also be described.

B. 2. b.  Description of Crop Requirements

Crop requirements should be specified with respect to:

      •   Water requirements and tolerance

      •   Nutrient requirements

      •   Necessary soil amendments
                                    124
-------
      •   Climatic conditions

      •   Public health requirements

Methods for evaluating crop performance with respect to these requirements
and operating procedures to ensure that the requirements are met should be
described.

B. 2.c.  Planting, Harvesting, and Cultivation

Procedures should be described for all aspects of crop management,  including:
planting, harvesting, and cultivation.  A general schedule for crop manage-
ment should be included,  and methods of determining optimum dates for
planting, harvesting, and cultivation should be explained. Related events and
requirements, such as the requirement for ceasing application a certain
number of days prior to harvesting, should also be described.

B.3.  RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER

Operating procedures for the recovery of renovated water should be described
for all systems which employ: (1)  pumped withdrawal, (2)  tile drainage, or
(3)  collection  of runoff from overland flow.  Detailed considerations for the
operation  and maintenance of recovery systems  are presented in various
references, most notably in Drainage of Agricultural Land [38].  Standard
procedures, operating parameters,  and methods of control should be listed
for both normal flow conditions and peak flows.  Quality monitoring and dis-
charge requirements should also be listed.  Any point source municipal dis-
charge requires a permit under the NPDES program.  Systems built with EPA
construction grant funds are controlled by conditions  of the construction grant.
Special procedures for unusual or emergency conditions, such as the  collection
and storage of contaminated storm runoff for later application, should be
described.

B.4.  STORAGE

Storage of effluent to be applied will often present special problems for land-
application systems, in that large volumes of water must frequency be stored
for long periods of time.  For this reason,  procedures for the operation of
the effluent storage facilities should be described in detail.  If the potential
for special problems, such as odors resulting from anaerobic conditions
or the growth of unwanted aquatic life exists, special procedures and  methods
of control should be included.

B.5.  SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND EMERGENCY CONDITIONS

Operating procedures for special problems and emergency conditions should
be described in Chapter 9 of the manual.  Design features with respect to
flexibility (H-C.8.) and reliability (II-C.9.) will form the basis for any
special operating procedures that may be required.
                                   125
-------
                                 Section C

                              MONITORING


The monitoring requirements of a land-application system must receive
special consideration, because of the wide variety and complexity of para-
meters and effects that should be analyzed.  Requirements should be
described with respect to each system component in Chapter 3 of the
Operations and Maintenance Manual and with respect to laboratory testing in
Chapter 6. If the monitoring requirements are complex, it may be appropriate
to devote an entire chapter to the monitoring program or to expand Chapter 6
(Laboratory Testing) to include a description of the entire program.

In the following subsections, monitoring considerations that should be included
in the operation and maintenance manual are discussed with respect to:

      •   Parameters to be monitored

      •   Monitoring procedures

      •   Interpretation of results

C.I.  PARAMETERS TO BE MONITORED

As in most conventional treatment facilities, concentrations of certain constitu-
ents should be monitored at various stages  in the treatment process.  Gener-
ally, for land-application systems, water quality should be analyzed at the
following stages:

      •   Influent into the system

      •   Following preapplication treatment

      •   Following storage

      •   Groundwater

      •   Recovered water (from pumped withdrawal, underdrains,
          or collected runoff from overland flow)

Water-quality  parameters that must be analyzed at each of these stages will
vary.  Monitoring at the first three stages will be primarily for system control
and optimization purposes.  Consequently, the parameters to  be analyzed will
be those identified as indexes of previous treatment efficiency, and those that
may indicate the requirement for operational adjustments during subsequent
treatment processes.
                                   127
-------
Water quality parameters that should be analyzed in the groundwater are those:
(1) given in the proposed Criteria for Water Quality [29],  or any revisions
thereof,  (2) required by state or local agencies,  (3) given in the report on
Alternative Waste Treatment Management Techniques for Best Practicable
Waste Treatment [3] and any revisions thereof, and (4) necessary for system
control.  Monitoring requirements for recovered water will depend upon the
disposition of that water.  If the water is to be discharged,  the parameters
to be analyzed must include  those required in the NPDES permit.  If the water
is to be reused, analysis of  additional parameters may be required by cogni-
zant public health agencies.

In addition, a variety of other system effects,  in some cases, should also be
monitored both at the site and in the surrounding area. These include:

      •    Groundwater levels and direction of flow (I-C. 2. e.)

      •    Physical and chemical soil characteristics (I-C. 2. c. 1)

      •    Growth and production characteristics of crops or vegetation

      •    Various environmental effects (on adjacent land,  animal and insect
          lives, etc.)

C.2.  MONITOEING PROCEDURE

Detailed procedures for monitoring must be described for each aspect of the
monitoring program, including the location of sampling points, and the fre-
quency of sampling.  Descriptions  of the appropriate laboratory tests, where
the test is to be performed,  and by whom, should be included in Chapter 6 for
each parameter that is to be monitored.  The type of scope  of information
that is being sought should be described.  Blakeslee [14] presents some sug-
gested procedures for groundwater monitoring.

C. 3.  INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Charts, graphs, ranges of satisfactory values, and upper limits requiring
remedial action must be included for each major parameter where applicable.
A range of results that are to be expected during normal operation should be
indicated, along with those results that may be an indication of a malfunction
in the system.  Whenever possible, indications of malfunctions should be re-
lated to appropriate measures of control and corrective procedures (Etl-D. 3).

During the initial years of operation, monitoring results should be analyzed
and reviewed with the designer or various specialists.  For example,  inter-
pretation of groundwater data by a geohydrologist may be necessary.   Results
that should be  referred to personnel outside the normal operating staff should
be identified.
                                    128
-------
C.4.  SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING

Those results which relate directly to NPDES permits or other requirements
should be specifically noted, as should results which come under the surveil-
lance of various agencies such as state or local water resource boards or
public health agencies.
                                  129
-------
                                 Section D

                              IMPACT CONTROL


An important consideration in the review of the operation and maintenance
manual is whether the control of potential adverse effects has been adequately
addressed.  Each potential adverse effect that was identified in the facilities
plan and environmental assessment (I-F.) should be considered.  Aspects
of impact control that should be included are:

      •   Description of possible adverse effects

      •   Indexes of critical effects

      •   Methods of control

      •   Methods of remedial action

D. 1.  DESCRIPTION OF POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

All possible adverse effects of the system, including environmental, public
health,  social,  and economic effects that were previously identified in either
the planning or design stage should be identified and described. The intro-
ductory section of Chapter 3 of the manual is suggested as a reasonable place
to present this information.   In addition, possible adverse effects that may
result from any one particular component of the system should be discussed
in Chapter 9.

D. 2.  INDEXES OF CRITICAL EFFECTS

Critical effects of a treatment system are those adverse impacts that must be
controlled.  Whenever possible,  these indexes or first indications of critical
effects should be described.  They should be related to:

      •   Results of monitoring program

      •   Unusual or emergency conditions at the site

      •   Malfunction of various system components

      •   General observations of the operator

Provisions should be made so that the overall effects of the system based on
all available information can be routinely monitored.
                                  131
-------
D. 3.  METHODS OF CONTROL

Methods of control should be described with respect to both normal operating
controls and procedures, and adjustments or modifications to those procedures
for each possible adverse effect.  For example, elimination of standing water
on the application area will normally be a standard procedure for most sys-
tems; however, it is also a method of control for mosquito breeding.  Gener-
ally, each method of control should be described by component in Chapter 3
of the manual (ffl-A. 3.) and should be specifically related to the effect it
controls (EH-D. 1.), and to the indication of that effect (ffi-D. 2.).

A convenient way of relating indications of critical  effects to the appropriate
methods of control is through the inclusion of a section on troubleshooting.
Provisions should be included for the periodic  reevaluation of control methods,
particularly for the control of long-range effects.   It should, however, be
emphasized that land application is a dynamic process and that monitoring
results will often be variable.  Consequently, control measures that take
trends into account should be employed.

D.4.  METHODS OF REMEDIAL ACTION

Remedial actions should be described for the various adverse effects that may
result from system or  component failure, accidents, and other unusual or
emergency conditions.  The objectives  of these actions should be to prevent
or minimize the adverse effects when emergency conditions are encountered,
or to correct the situation once damage has been done.  Depending on the
system, necessary remedial actions may generally be described in Chapter 9
of the manual, Emergency Operating and Response Program (ffl-A).
                                   132
-------
APPENDIXES
-------
                                Appendix A
                              REFERENCES
 1.   A Guide to Planning and Designing Effluent Irrigation Disposal Systems in
      Missouri.  University of Missouri Extension Division.  March 1973.

 2.   Allender, G. C.  The Cost of a Spray Irrigation System for the Renovation
      of Treated Municipal Wastewater.  Master's Thesis, University Park,
      The Pennsylvania State University.  September 1972.

 3.   Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste
      Treatment (Draft).  Office of Water Program Operations, Environmental
      Protection Agency.  March 1974.

 4.   American Public Works Association.  Prevention and Correction of Ex-
      cessive Infiltration and Inflow into Sewer Systems.  Environmental
      Protection Agency.  January 1971.

 5.   Amramy, A. Waste Treatment for Groundwater Recharge.  Journal
      WPCF, 36, No. 3, pp 296-298. 1964.

 6.   Aulenbach, D. B., T. P. Glavin, andJ.A.R. Rojas. Effectiveness of a
      Deep Natural Sand Filter for Finishing of a Secondary Treatment Plant
      Effluent.  Presented at the New York Water Pollution Control Association
      Meeting.  January 29, 1970.

 7.   Ayers, R.  S.  Water Quality Criteria for Agriculture.  UC-Committee of
      Consultants.  CWRCB.  April 1973.

 8.   Baffa,  J. J. and N.  J.  Bartilucci.  Wastewater Reclamation by Ground-
      water Recharge on Long Island. Journal WPCF, 39, No. 3, pp 431-445.
      1967.

 9.   Bailey, G.  W.  Role of Soils and Sediment in Water Pollution Control,
      Parti. Southeast Water Laboratory,  FWPCA.  U.S. Department of the
      Interior.  March 1968.

10.   Battelle Columbus Laboratories.  Environmental Assessments for Effec-
      tive Water  Quality Management Planning. Environmental Protection
      Agency.  April 1972.

11.   Bendixen, T. W., et al.  Cannery Waste Treatment by Spray Irrigation
      Runoff. Journal WPCF, 41, No.  3, pp 385-391.  1969.
                                    133
-------
12.   Bendixen, T. W.,  et al.  Ridge and Furrow Liquid Waste Disposal in a
     Northern Latitude.  ASCE Sanitary Engineering Division, 94,  No.  SA 1,
     pp 147-157.  1968.

13.   Bernarde,  M. A.  Land Disposal and Sewage Effluent: Appraisal of Health
     Effects of Pathogenic Organisms.  Journal AWWA,  65, No. 6, pp 432-440.
     1973.

14.   Blakeslee, P. A.  Monitoring Considerations for Municipal Wastewater
     Effluent and Sludge Application to the Land.  Proceedings of the Joint
     Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,
     Champaign, University of Illinois.   July 1973.   pp 183-198.

15.   Blaney, H. F. and W. D. Criddle.  Determining Consumptive Use and
     Irrigation Water Requirements.  Technical Bulletin No.  1275, U.S.
     Department of Agriculture.  Washington, D. C.  December 1962.

16.   Blosser, R. O.  and E. L. Owens.   Irrigation and Land Disposal of Pulp
     Mill Effluents.   Water and Sewage Works, HI,  No.  9,  pp 424-432.  1964.

17.   Boen,  D.  F., et al.  Study of Reutilization of Wastewater Recycled
     through Groundwater, Vol. 1. Eastern Municipal Water District,  Office
     of Research and Monitoring.  Project 16060 DDZ.  Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency.  July 1971.

18.   Bouwer, H.  Ground Water Recharge Design for Renovating Waste Water.
     ASCE Sanitary Engineering Division, 96, No. SA 1, pp 59-74.  1970.

19.   Bouwer, H.  Land Treatment of Liquid Waste:  The Hydrologic  System.
     Proceedings of the Joint  Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
     Effluents on Land, Champaign,  University of Illinois.  July 1973.
     pp 103-112.

20.   Bouwer, H., R. C. Rice, and E. D. Escarcega.  Renovating Secondary
     Sewage by Ground Water Recharge with Infiltration Basins. U. S.  Water
     Conservation Laboratory, Office of Research and Monitoring. Project
     No.  16060 DRV.  Environmental Protection Agency.  March 1972.

21.   Bouwer, H.  Water Quality Aspects of Intermittent Systems Using
     Secondary Sewage Effluent.   Presented at the Artificial Groundwater
     Recharge Conference.  University of Reading, England.  September 21-24,
     1970.

22.   Broadbent, F. E.  Factors Affecting Nitrification-Denitrification  in Soils.
     In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest
     and Cropland, Sopper, W. E. and  L. T.  Kardos,  (ed.).  University Park,
     The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1973.  pp 232-244.
                                    134
-------
23.   Buxton, J. L.  Determination of a Cost for Reclaiming Sewage Effluent
      by Ground Water Recharge in Phoenix, Arizona.  Master's Thesis,
      Arizona State University.  June 1969.

24.   Canham, R.  A.  Comminuted Solids Inclusion with Spray Irrigated
      Canning Waste.  Sewage & Industrial Wastes, 30,  No.  8, pp 1028-1049.
      1958.

25.   Chancy, R. L.  Crop and Food Chain Effects of Toxic Elements in Sludges
      and Effluents.  Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Munici-
      pal Sludges and Effluents on Land, Champaign, University of Illinois.
      July 1973. pp 129-142.

26.   Chapman, H. D.  and P.  F. Pratt.  Methods of Analysis for Soils,
      Plants, and Waters.  University of California. Division of Agricultural
      Sciences.  August 1961.

27.   Chapman, H. D., (ed.).  Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils.
      Abilene, Quality  Printing Company,  Inc., 1965.

28.   Coerver, J.  F.  Health Regulations Concerning Sewage Effluent for
      Irrigation.  Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent
      for Irrigation.  Louisiana Polytechnic Institution.  July 30, 1968.

29.   Criteria for Water Quality, Volume I. U. S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency.  October 1973.

30.   Crites, R. W.  Irrigation with Wastewater at Bakersfield,  California.
      Conference on the Use of Wastewater in the Production of Food and Fiber.
      Oklahoma City.  March 1974.

31.   Cunningham, H.  Environmental Protection Criteria for Disposal of
      Treated Sewage on Forest  Lands.  Eastern Region, U.S. Forest Service.
      Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  July 1971.

32.   C. W. Thornthwaite Associates. An Evaluation of Cannery Waste Dis-
      posal by Overland Flow Spray Irrigation.  Publications in  Climatology,
      22, No. 2. September 1969.

33.   Day, A. D.  Recycling Urban Effluents on Land Using Annual Crops.
      Proceedings  of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
      Effluents on Land, Champaign, University of Illinois.  July 1973.
      pp 155-160.

34.   Deaner, D. G. Public Health and Water Reclamation.  Water and Sewage
      Works, Reference No. 117, pp 7-13.  November 1970.
                                   135
-------
35.   Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System Component
      Reliability. Office of Water Program Operations,  Environmental
      Protection Agency.

36.   De Vries, J.  Soil Filtration of Wastewater Effluent and the Mechanism of
      Pore Clogging.  Journal WPCF, 44, No. 4, pp 565-573.  1972.

37.   Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils.  U.S. Salinity
      Laboratory.  Agriculture Handbook No. 60.  U.S. Department of
      Agriculture.   1963.

38.   Drainage of Agricultural Land.  Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Depart-
      ment of Agriculture. Water Information Center,  Inc.  1973.

39.   Drake, J. A.  and F. K.  Bierei.  Disposal of Liquid Wastes by the Irriga-
      tion Method at Vegetable Canning Plants in Minnesota 1948-1950.  Pro-
      ceedings of the 6th Industrial Waste Conference. Lafayette, Purdue
      University. 1951.  pp 70-79.

40.   Drewry, W. A.  and R. Eliassen.  Virus Movement in Groundwater.  Jour-
      nal WPCF, 40, No. 8, Part 2,  pp R257-R271.  1968.

41.   Driver,  C. H.,  et al.  Assessment of the Effectiveness and Effects of
      Land Disposal Methodologies of Wastewater Management.   Department
      of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wastewater Management.  Report 72-1.
      January 1972.

42.   Dunbar, J. O. Public Acceptance-Educational and Informational Needs.
      Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
      Effluents on Land, Champaign, University of Illinois.  July 1973.
      pp 207-212.

43.   Dunlop,  S. G.  Survival of Pathogens and Related Disease Hazards.  Pro-
      ceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage  Effluent for Irrigation.
      Louisiana Polytechnic Institution.  July 30, 1968.

44.   Eliassen, H., et al.  Studies on the Movement of Viruses with Groundwater.
      Water Quality Control Research Laboratory,  Stanford University.  1967.

45.   Ellington, C.  P. Some Extension Service Capabilities. Proceedings of
      the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on
      Land, Champaign, University of Illinois.  July 1973.  pp 213-214.

46.   Ellis, B. G.   The Soil as a Chemical Filter.  In: Recycling Treated
      Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,
      Sopper,  W. E. and L.  T. Kardos, (ed.).  University Park, The
      Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.  pp 46-70.
                                     136
-------
47.   Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for Muskegon County,
      Michigan Wastewater Treatment - Irrigation System.  Muskegon County
      Board and Department of Public Works.  Program No.  11010 FMY.
      Federal Water Quality Administration.  September 1970.

48.   Environmental Impact Report and Public Participation Guidelines for
      Wastewater Agencies.  State Water  Resources Control Board.
      Sacramento,  California. July 1973.

49.   Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
      Operation and Maintenance Program.  Office of Water Program Operations,
      Environmental Protection Agency.  March 1973.

50.   Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation and Maintenance of Waste Water
      Treatment Facilities.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1970.

51.   Fisk, W. W.  Food Processing Waste Disposal.  Water and Sewage Works,
      IE, No.  9, pp 417-420. 1964.

52.   Flach, K. W.  Land Resources.  Proceedings of the Joint Conference on
      Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.  Champaign, Univer-
      sity of Illinois.  July 1973.   pp 113-120.

53.   Foster,  H. B.,  P.  C. Ward, and A. A. Prucha.   Nutrient Removal by
      Effluent Spraying.   ASCE Sanitary Engineering Division, 91, No.  SA 6,
      pp 1-12.  1965.

54.   Fried, M. and H. Broeshart.  The Soil-Plant System in Relation to
      Inorganic Nutrition. New York, Academic Press.  1967.

55.   Frost, T. P., et al.  Spray Irrigation Project, Mt.  Sunapee State  Park,
      New Hampshire.  In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
      through Forest and Cropland, Sopper, W. E.  and  L. T. Kardos,  (ed.).
      University Park, The Pennsylvania  State University Press. 1973.
      pp 371-384.

56.   Gilde, L. C., et al.  A Spray Irrigation System for Treatment of Cannery
      Wastes. Journal WPCF, 43, No. 8, pp 2011-2025.  1971.

57.   Gillespie, C. G.  Simple Application of Fundamental Principles of Sewage
      Treatment.  Sewage Works Journal, 1, No. 1, p 68.  1928.

58.   Gotaas,  H. B.  Fteld Investigation of Waste Water Reclamation in
      Relation to Ground Water Pollution.  California State Water Pollution
      Control Board.  Publication No. 6.  1953.

59.   Grants for Construction of Treatment Works. 40  CFR 35, Federal Regis-
      ter, 38, No.  39.  February 28, 1973.
                                    137
-------
60.  Gray, J. F.  Practical Irrigation with Sewage Effluent. Proceedings of
     the Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation.  Louisiana
     Polytechnic Institution.  July 30, 1968.

61.  Green, R.  L.,  G. L. Page, Jr., andW. M. Johnson. Considerations
     for Preparation of Operation and Maintenance Manuals. Office of Water
     Program Operations, Environmental Protection Agency.

62.  Guidance for Facilities Planning.  Office of Air and Water Programs,
     Environmental  Protection Agency.  January 1974.

63.  Guidance for Sewer System Evaluation. Office of Water Program
     Operations, Environmental Protection Agency.  March 1974.

64.  Guide for Rating Limitations of Soils for Disposal of Waste. Interim
     Guide.  Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
     April 1973.

65.  Hill, R. D.,  T. W. Bendixen,  and G.  G. Robeck.  Status of Land Treat-
     ment for Liquid Waste — Functional Design.  Presented at the Water
     Pollution Control Federation Conference.  Bal Harbour.  October 1964.

66.  Hook, J. E., L.  T.  Kardos, and W. E. Sopper.  Effects of Land Disposal
     of Wastewaters on Soil Phosphorus Relations.  In:  Recycling Treated
     Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,
     Sopper, W. E.  and L. T. Kardos,  (ed.), University Park, The
     Pennsylvania State University Press, 1973.  pp 200-219.

67.  Hunt, P. G.  Overland Flow Experimentation at the Waterways Experiment
     Station.  Department of the Army,  Corps of Engineers.  Vicksburg,
     Mississippi.  September  1973.

68.  Hutchins, W. A.  Sewage Irrigation as  Practiced in the Western States.
     Technical Bulletin No. 675. U. S. Department of Agriculture.
     March 1939.

69.  Hyde, C.  G.  The Beautification and Irrigation of Golden Gate Park with
     Activated Sludge Effluent.  Sewage Works Journal,  9, No. 6, pp 929-941.
     1937.

70.  Kardos,  L. T.  Crop Response to Sewage Effluent.  Proceedings of the
     Symposium on Municipal  Sewage Effluent for Irrigation.  Louisiana
     Polytechnic Institution.  July 30, 1968.
                                    138
-------
71.  Kardos,  L.  T.  and W. E. Sopper.  Effects of Land Disposal of Waste-
     water on Exchangeable Cations and Other Chemical Elements in the Soil.
     In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest
     and Cropland, Sopper, W. E. and L. T. Kardos, (ed.).  "University
     Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973. pp 324-333.

72,  Kardos,  L.  T.  and W. E. Sopper.  Renovation of Municipal Wastewater
     through Land Disposal by Spray Irrigation.  In:  Recycling Treated
     Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,
     Sopper, W.  E.  and L. T. Kardos,  (ed.). University Park, The
     Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.  pp 148-163.

73.  Kaufman, W. J.  Notes on Chemical Pollution of Groundwater.  Pre-
     sented at the Water Resources Engineering Educational Series, Program
     X, Groundwater Pollution.  San Francisco.  January 1973.

74.  Kazlowsld, T. T.  Water Relations and Growth of Trees.  Journal of
     Forestry, pp 4 98-502. July 1958.

75.  King, L. G. and R. J. Hanks.  Irrigation Management for Control of
     Quality of Irrigation Return Flow.  Office of Research and Development,
     Environmental Protection Agency.  June 1973.

76.  Kirby, C. F.  Sewage Treatment Farms. Department of Civil Engineer-
     ing.  University of Melbourne.  1971.

77.  Krone, R. B.  The Movement of Disease Producing Organisms through
     Soils.  Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for
     Irrigation.  Louisiana Polytechnic Institution.  July 30, 1968.

78.  Krone, R. B.,  G. T.  Orlob, and C. Hodgkinson.  Movement of Coliform
     Bacteria through Porous  Media.  Sewage and Industrial Wastes,  30,
     No. 1, pp 1-13.   1958.

79.  Lager, J. A. and W.  G. Smith.  Urban Stormwater Management and
     Technology:  An Assessment.  Office of Research and Development,
     Environmental Protection Agency.  December 1973.

80.  Lance, J. C.  Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms.  Journal WPCF,
     44, No. 7, pp 1352-1361.  1972.

81.  Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges:  Selected Abstracts.
     Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency.
     1974.
                                    139
-------
82.   Larson, W. C. Spray Irrigation for the Removal of Nutrients in Sewage
     Treatment Plant Effluent as Practiced at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota.
     Algae and Metropolitan Wastes.  Transactions of the 1960 Seminar, U. S.
     Department of HEW.  1960.

83.   Laverty, F.B. et al.  Reclaiming Hyperion Effluent.  ASCE Sanitary
     Engineering Division, 87, No. SA 6, pp 1-40.  1961.

84.   Law, J. P. Jr., R. E. Thomas, and L. H. Myers.  Cannery Wastewater
     Treatment by High-Rate Spray on Grassland.  Journal WPCF, 42,  No. 9,
     pp 1621-1631.   1970.

85.   Law, J. P. Jr., R. E. Thomas, and L. H. Myers.  Nutrient Removal
     from Cannery Wastes by  Spray Irrigation of Grassland.  FWPCA,  U. S.
     Department of the Interior.  Program No.  16080.  November 1969.

86.   Lindsay, W. L.  Inorganic Reactions of Sewage Wastes with Soils.  Pro-
     ceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
     Effluents on Land, Champaign,  University of Illinois.  July 1973.
     pp 91-96.

87.   Linsley, R. K., M. A. Kohler, and J. L.  H. Paulhus.  Hydrology for
     Engineers.  New York, McGraw-Hill.  1958.  pp 122-132.

88.   Manual for Evaluating Public Drinking Water Supplies. U.S. EPA.
     Office of Water Programs. 1971.

89.   Manual of Septic-Tank Practice.  Public Health Service Publication
     No.  526, U.S. Department of HEW.  Revised 1967.

90.   Martin, B.  Sewage Reclamation at Golden Gate Park. Sewage &
     Industrial Wastes, 23, No. 3, pp 319-320.  1951.

91.   Mather, J. R.  An Investigation of Evaporation from Irrigation Sprays.
     Agricultural Engineering, 31, No. 7, pp 345-348.  1960.

92.   Mather, J. R. and G. A. Yoshioka.  The Role of Climate in the Distribu-
     tion of Vegetation.  Annals Association American Geographers,  58, No. 1,
     pp 29-41.   1968.

93.   McCarty,  P. L. and P. H. King. The Movement of Pesticides in  Soils.
     Proceedings of the 21st Industrial Waste Conference,  Part 1.  Lafayette,
     Purdue University.  1966.  pp 156-171.

94.   McGauhey,  P. H. and R. B. Krone.  Soil Mantle as a Wastewater Treat-
     ment System.  SERL Report No. 67-11. Berkeley, University of
     California.  December 1967.
                                     140
-------
 95.   McGauhey,  P.  H. and J. H. Winneberger. A Study of Methods of Pre-
       venting Failure of Septic-Tank Percolation Systems.  SERL Report
       No.  65-17.  Berkeley, University of California.  October 1965.

 96.   McKee, J. E.  and H. W. Wolf.  Water Quality Criteria, 2nd edition.
       Report to California State Water Quality  Control Board, Publication 3A.
       1963.

 97.   McMichael, F. C. and J. E. McKee.  Wastewater Reclamation at
       Whittier Narrows.  California State Water Quality Control Board.
       Publication No. 33.  1966.

 98.   McQueen, F.   Sewage Treatment for Obtaining Park Irrigation Water.
       Public Works,  64, No.  10, pp 16-17.  1933.

 99.   Melsted, S. W.  Soil-Plant Relationships (Some Practical Considerations
       in Waste Management).  Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
       Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,  Champaign, University of
       Illinois,  July 1973.  pp 121-128.

100.   Merrell, J. C.,  et al.  The Santee Recreation Project, Santee, California,
       Final Report.   FWPCA,  U.S.  Department of the Interior, Cincinnati.
       1967.

101.   Merz, R. C.  Continued Study of Waste Water Reclamation and Utilization.
       California State Water Pollution Control Board,  Sacramento, California.
       Publication No. 15.  1956.

102.   Merz, R. C.  Third Report on the Study of Waste Water Reclamation and
       Utilization.  California State Water Pollution Control Board, Sacramento,
       California.  Publication No. 18.  1957.

103.   Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc. Wastewater Engineering.  New York, McGraw-Hill
       Book Co.  1972.

104.   Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Non-Point
       Sources of Pollutants.  Office of Air and Water Programs, Environmental
       Protection Agency.  October 1973.

105.   Miller, R. H.  The Soil as a Biological Filter.  In: Recycling Treated
       Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,
       Sopper, W.  E. and L. T. Kardos, (ed.).  University Park,  The
       Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.  pp 71-94.

106.   Mitchell,  G. A.  Municipal Sewage Irrigation.  Engineering News-Re cord,
       119, pp 63-66. July 8, 1937.
                                      141
-------
107. Mortvedt, J. J., P. M. Giordano, and W.  L. Lindsay (ed.).  Micro-
     nutrients in Agriculture.  Soil Science Society of America, Inc.  Madison,
     Wisconson.   1972.

108. Murphy, W.  K.,  et al.  Anatomical and Physical Properties of Red Oak
     and Red Pine Irrigated with Municipal Wastewater.  In: Recycling
     Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,
     Sopper,  W.  E. and L. T.  Kardos, (ed.).  University Park,  The
     Pennsylvania State University Press, 1973.  pp 295-310.

109. Myers, E. A.  Sprinkler Irrigation Systems:  Design and Operation
     Criteria. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through
     Forest and Cropland, Sopper, W. E.  and L.  T.  Kardos, (ed.).  Univer-
     sity Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.  pp 324-333.

110. National Academy of Science-National Academy of Engineering,  Environ-
     mental Study Board, ad hoc Committee on Water Quality Criteria 1972.
     Water Quality Criteria 1972. U. S.  Government Printing Office.  1974.

111. Nelson,  L.   Cannery Wastes Disposal by Spray Irrigation.   Wastes
     Engineering, 23, No. 8, pp 398-400.  1952.

112. Nesbitt, J.  B.  Cost of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater Renovation.  In:
     Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and
     Cropland.  Sopper, W.  E.  and L. T.  Kardos, (ed.).  University Park,
     The Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973. pp 334-338.

113. Page, A. L.  Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge when
     Applied to Agricultural Lands.   Office of Research and Development,
     Environmental Protection Agency.  1974.

114. Pair,  C. H., (ed.).  Sprinkler Irrigation.  Supplement to the 3rd edition.
     Silver Spring, Sprinkler Irrigation Association.  1973.

115. Pair,  C. H.  (ed.).  Sprinkler Irrigation, 3rd edition.  Washington, D. C.,
     Sprinkler Irrigation Association. 1969.

116. Parizek, R.  R.,  et ai.  Waste Water Renovation and Conservation.
     University Park, Penn State Studies No.  23.  1967.

117. Parizek, R.  R.   Site Selection Criteria for Wastewater Disposal-Soils
     and Hydrogeologic Considerations.  In:  Recycling.Treated Municipal
     Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and  Cropland, Sopper,  W. E. and
     L.  T. Kardos, (ed.).  University Park,  The Pennsylvania State Univer-
     sity Press.   1973.  pp 95-147.
                                    142
-------
118.  Parizek,  R. R. and B.  E. Lane.  Soil-Water Sampling Using Pan
      and Deep Pressure-Vacuum Lysimeters.  Journal of Hydrology, 11,
      pp 1-21.  1970.

119.  Parsons,  W. C.  Spray Irrigation of Wastes from the Manufacture of
      Hardboard.  Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference.
      Lafayette, Purdue University.  1967. pp 602-607.

120.  Patterson, W.  L.  and R.  F.  Banker. Estimating Costs and Manpower
      Requirements for  Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Office
      of Research and Monitoring,  Environmental Protection Agency.  August
      1973.

121.  Philipp, A. H.  Disposal of Insulation Board Mill Effluent by Land
      Irrigation.  Journal WPCF, 43, No.  8, pp 1749-1754.  1971.

122.  Poon,  C.  P. C. Viability of Long Storaged Airborne Bacterial
      Aerosols.  ASCE Sanitary Engineering Division, 94, No. SA 6, pp 1137-
      1146.  1968.

123.  Postlewait, J.  C.  Some Experiences in Land Acquisition for a Land
      Disposal System for Sewage Effluent. Proceedings  of the Joint Conference
      on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,  Champaign,
      University of Illinois.  July 1973.  pp 25-38.

124.  Pound, C. E. and  R.  W. Crites.   Characteristics of Municipal Effluents.
      Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
      Effluents on Land, Champaign, University of Illinois.  July 1973.
      pp 49-62.

125.  Pound, C. E. and  R.  W. Crites.  Wastewater  Treatment and Reuse by
      Land Application,  Volumes I and II.  Office of Research and Development,
      Environmental Protection Agency. August 1973.

126.  Powell, G.  M. and G. L.  Gulp. AWT vs. Land Treatment:  Montgomery
      County, Maryland. Water & Sewage  Works, 120, No. 4, pp 58-67.  1973.

127.  Pratt,  J.  N. Personal Communication.   March 1973.

128.  Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from
      all Construction Activity.  Office of Air and Water Programs,  Environ-
      mental Protection  Agency. October 1973.

129.  Rafter, G. W.  Sewage Irrigation, Part II.  USGS Water Supply and
      Irrigation Paper No. 22.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
      D. C.  1899.
                                     143
-------
130.  Reed, S. C.  Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land.  Corps
     of Engineers, U.S.  Army, Special Report 171.  Cold Regions Research
     and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.  May 1972.

131.  Reed, S. C. and T. D. Buzzell.  Land Treatment of Wastewaters for
     Rural Communities. Presented at Rural Environmental Engineering
     Conference.  Warren, Vermont.   September 26-28,  1973.

132.  Reid, D. M.  Whittier Narrows Test Basin,  Progress Report.
     Los Angeles County Flood Control District.  July 1973.

133.  Reinke, E. A.  California Regulates Use of Sewage for Crop Irrigation.
     Wastes  Engineering, 22, pp 364, 376.  1951.

134.  Rose, J. L.  Advanced Waste Treatment in Nassau County,  N.Y.  Water
     & Wastes Engineering, 7, No.  2,  pp 38-39.  1970.

135.  Rudolfs, W., L. L.  Falk, and R.  A. Ragotzkie.  Contamination of
     Vegetables Grown in Polluted Soil: VI.  Application of Results.  Sewage
     & Industrial Wastes, 23, pp 992-1000.  1951,

136.  Schraufnagel,  F. H.   Ridge-and-Furrow Irrigation tor Industrial
     Wastes  Disposal.   Journal WPCF, 34,  No. 11,  pp  1117-1132.  1962.

137.  Schwartz, W. A. and T. W. Bendixen.   Soil Systems for Liquid Waste
     Treatment and Disposal: Environmental Factors. Journal WPCF, 42,
     No. 4, pp 624-630.   1970.

138.  SCS Engineers.  Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs for
     Reuse of Municipal Wastewater.   Environmental  Protection  Agency.  1974.

139.  Seabrook, B. L.  Land Application of Wastewater with a Demographic
     Evaluation.  Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal
     Sludges and Effluents on Land, Champaign, University of Illinois.
     July 1973.  pp 9-24.

140.  Sepp, E.  Disposal of Domestic Wastewater by Hillside Sprays.  ASCE
     Environmental Engineering Division, 99, No. EE2,  pp 109-121.  1973.

141.  Sepp, E.  Nitrogen  Cycle in Groundwater.  Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.
     California State Department of Public Health, Berkeley.  1970.

142.  Sepp, E.  Survey of Sewage Disposal by Hillside  Sprays.  Bureau of
     Sanitary Engineering.  California State Department of Public Health,
     Berkeley.  March 1965.
                                     144
-------
143. Sepp, E.  The Use of Sewage for Irrigation — A Literature Review.
     Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. California State Department of Public
     Health, Berkeley.  1971.

144. Skulte,  B.  P. Agricultural Values of Sewage.   Sewage & Industrial
     Wastes, 25,  No.  11, pp 1297-1303.  1953.

145. Skulte,  B.  P. Irrigation with Sewage Effluents. Sewage & Industrial
     Wastes, 28,  No.  1, pp 36-43.  1956.

146. Smith,  R.  Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of Wastewater.
     Journal WPCF, 40, No. 9, pp 1546-1574.  1968.

147. Soil-Plant-Water Relationships.  Irrigation, Chapter 1.  SCS National
     Engineering Handbook, Section 15.  Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
     Department of Agriculture.  March 1964.

148. Sopper, W. E.  Crop Selection and Management Alternatives-Perennials.
     Proceedings  of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
     Effluents on Land, Champaign, University of Illinois,  July 1973.  pp 143-154.

149. Sopper, W. E. and L.  T.  Kardos, (ed.).  Recycling Treated Municipal
     Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland.  University Park,
     The Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.

150. Sopper, W. E. and L.  T.  Kardos.  Vegetation Responses to Irrigation
     with Treated Municipal Wastewater.  In:  Recycling Treated Municipal
     Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Sopper, W. E. and
     L.  T. Kardos,  (ed.).  University Park, The Pennsylvania State
     University Press.  1973.  pp 271-294.

151. Sopper, W. E. and J. Sagmuller.  Forest Vegetation Growth Responses
     to Irrigation with Municipal Sewage Effluent.  Reprint Series No. 23.
     Institute for Research on Land and Water Resource.  University Park,
     The Pennsylvania State University.  March 1971.

152. Sorber, C. A.  Problem Definition Study: Evaluation of Health and
     Hygiene Aspects of Land Disposal of Wastewater at Military Installations.
     U.S. Army Medical Environmental Engineering Research Unit.
     USAMEERU Report No. 73-02. Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland.  August
     1972.

153. Sorber, C. A.  Protection of Public Health, Proceedings of the Confer-
     ence on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents and Sludges.  New Brunswick,
     Rutgers University.  March 12-13,  1973.  pp 201-209.

154. Spray Irrigation Manual.  Publication No. 31.   Bureau of Water Quality
     Management.  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
     Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania.  1972.
                                    145
-------
155. Sprinkler Irrigation.  Irrigation, Chapter 11.  SCS National Engineering
     Handbook, Section 15.  Soil Conservation Service.  U.S. Department of
     Agriculture.  July 1968.

156. Stevens, R. M.  Green Land— Clean Streams: The Beneficial Use of
     Waste Water through Land Treatment.  Center for the Study of
     Federalism.  Philadelphia, Temple University.  1972.

157. Studies  in Water Reclamation.  Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory.
     Technical Bulletin No. 13.  Berkeley, University of California.
     July 1955.

158. Sullivan,  D.  Wastewater for Golf Course Irrigation. Water & Sewage
     Works,  117,  No.  5, pp 153-159.  1970.

159. Sullivan, R. H.  Federal and State Legislative History and Provisions
     for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents and Sludges.
     Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
     Effluents on Land, Champaign,  University of Illinois. July 1973.  pp 1-8.

160. Sullivan, R. H., et al.  Survey of Facilities using Land Application of
     Wastewater.  Office of Water Program Operations.  Environmental
     Protection Agency. July 1973.

161. Tchobanoglous, G.  Physical and Chemical Processes for Nitrogen
     Removal — Theory and Application.  Proceedings of the 12th Sanitary
     Engineering Conference. Urbana,  University of Illinois.  1970.

162. Tchobanoglous, G.  Wastewater Treatment for Small Communities.
     Presented at the Conference on Rural Environmental Engineering.
     Warren, Vermont.  September  26-28, 1973.

163. Thomas,  R.  E.  Fate of Materials Applied.   Conference on Land Disposal
     of Wastewaters.  Michigan State University.  December 1972.

164. Thomas,  R.  E.  Spray-Runoff to Treat Raw Domestic Wastewater.
     International Conference on Land for Waste Management.  Ottawa,
     Canada.  October 1973.

165. Thomas,  R.  E. and T. W. Bendixen.  Degradation of Wastewater
     Organics  in Soil.   Journal WPCF,  41, No.  5, Part 1, pp 808-813.   1969.

166. Thomas,  R.  E. and C. C. Harlin, Jr. Experiences with Land Spreading
     of Municipal Effluents.  Presented at the First Annual IFAS Workshop
     on Land Renovation of Waste Water in Florida, Tampa.  June 1972.
                                    146
-------
167.  Thomas,  R.  E.  and J. P. Law,  Jr.  Soil Response to Sewage Effluent
      Irrigation.  Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent
      for Irrigation.   Louisiana Polytechnic Institution.  July 30, 1968.

168.  Thomas,  R.  E., W. A. Schwartz, and T.  W. Bendixen.  Soil Chemical
      Changes and Infiltration Rate Reduction Under Sewage Spreading.  Soil
      Science Society  of America, Proceedings, 30,  pp 641-646.  1966.

169.  Thornthwaite, C. W.  An Approach Toward a Rational Classification of
      Climates.  Geographical Review, 38, No.  1, pp 55-94.  1948.

170.  Thornthwaite, C. W.  and J. R. Mather.  The Water Balance.  Publica-
      tions in Climatology,  8, No.  1.  Laboratory of Climatology. 1955.

171.  Urie, D. H.  Phosphorus and Nitrate Levels in Groundwater as Related
      to Irrigation of Jack Pine with Sewage Effluent. In: Recycling Treated
      Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland.
      Sopper, W. E.  and L. T. Kardos, (ed.).  University Park, The
      Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973. pp  176-183.

172.  van der Goot, H. A.  Water Reclamation Experiments at Hyperion.
      Sewage & Industrial Wastes,  29, No. 10, pp 1139-1144.  1957.

173.  Van Note,  R. H.,  P.  V.  Hebert,  and R. M.  Patel.  A Guide to the
      Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems.  Municipal
      Wastewater Systems Division, Engineering and Design Branch.  Environ-
      mental Protection Agency.   1974.

174.  Waste into Wealth.  Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.
      Melbourne, Australia.  1971.

175.  Waste Water Reclamation.   California State Department of Public Health,
      Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.   California State Water Quality Control
      Board.  November 1967.

176.  Water Quality Criteria.  National Technical Advisory Committee.
      FWPCA.  Washington, D. C.  1968.

177.  Wells, D.  M. Groundwater Recharge with Treated Municipal Effluent.
      Proceedings  of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation.
      Louisiana Polytechnic Institution.  July 30, 1968.

178.  Wentink, G.  R.  and J. E. Etzel.  Removal of Metal Ions by Soil.  Journal
      WPCF, 44, No.  8, pp 1561-1574.  1972.

179.  Wesner, G. M.  and D. C. Baier.  Injection of Reclaimed Wastewater into
      Confined Aquifers.  Journal AWWA,  62, No. 3, pp 203-210. 1970.
                                    147
-------
180. Whetstone, G. A., H. W. Parker, and D.  M. Wells. Study of Current and
     Proposed Practices in Animal Waste Management.  Office of Air and Water
     Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.  January 1974.

181. Williams, T. C.  Utilization of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater  Disposal in
     Small Residential Developments.  In:  Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
     water and Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Sopper,  W. E. and
     L. T. Kardos,  (ed.).  University Park, The Pennsylvania State  University
     Press.  1973. pp 385-395.

182. Winneberger, J. T. and J.  W. Klock.  Current and Recommended Prac-
     tices for Subsurface Waste Water Disposal Systems in Arizona.  Engineer-
     ing Research Center,  Arizona State University. July 1973.

183. Woodley, R. A.  Spray Irrigation of Organic Chemical Wastes.  Proceed-
     ings of the 23rd Industrial Waste Conference.  Lafayette, Purdue Univer-
     sity.  1968.  pp 251-261.

184. Younger, V. B.  Ecological and Physiological Implications of Greenbelt
     Irrigation with Reclaimed Water.  In: Recycling Treated Municipal
     Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,  Sopper,  W. E. and
     L. T. Kardos,  (ed.).  University Park, The Pennsylvania State  Univer-
     sity  Press.  1973. pp 396-407.

185. Zimmerman, J. P. Irrigation.  New York,  John Wiley & Sons,  Inc.
     1966.
                                   148
-------
                                 Appendix B

                  SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
In this appendix,  17 references that may be of value to the reviewer are listed
and briefly described.  The first three references provide an assessment of the
state-of-the-art of land application and the fourth is an extensive annotated bibli-
ography.  Following the existing guidelines for operation and maintenance
manuals are a group of three proceedings from recent conferences,  each with a
number of papers by various authors, in which a wide range of different topics
are addressed.  The remaining references include technical handbooks and indi-
vidual papers which address a number of specific topics.

1.  Pound,  C. E. and R. W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land
    Application,  Volumes I and II.  Office of Research and Development,
    Environmental Protection Agency.  August 1973.

In the summary report (Volume I),  the results of a nationwide study conducted on
the current knowledge and techniques of land application are given.  Factors in-
volved in system  design and operation are discussed for irrigation, overland
flow,  and infiltration-percolation methods.  In addition, evaluations are made of
environmental effects, public health considerations,  and costs.

In Volume II, detailed examinations are made of the literature and the selected
sites visited.  The  relationship between climate and land application is examined.
The state-of-the-art of land application of industrial wastewater is also reported.
In addition,  sections on cost evaluation,  and land-application potential, and his-
tories of several  cases  of irrigation abandonment are included.

2.  Sullivan, R. H., et  al.   Survey of Facilities using Land Application of Waste-
    water.  Office  of Water Program Operations,  Environmental Protection
    Agency.  July 1973.

The results  of a field survey of 63 municipal and 19 industrial systems in 1972
using irrigation with wastewater are presented  in this report.  The data col-
lected are analyzed statistically using five climatic zones for the U. S.  Abstracts
from foreign experience and a state-by-state summary of health regulations are
included.  The appendix material is quite valuable since it includes all the raw
data from the visits plus narratives and results of a parallel  mail survey of 78
municipalities and 36  industries.  Also appended are two excellent papers by
Richard E. Thomas, soil scientist with the EPA.
                                   149
-------
3.  Reed,  S. C.  Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land.  Special
    Report 171.  Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
    U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers.  May  1972.

This state-of-the-art review considers three land disposal techniques:  spray
irrigation,  overland runoff, and rapid infiltration.  Each technique is considered
in detail, including such aspects as wastewater characteristics, water-quality
goals,  site conditions, operational criteria, and ecosystem response.   The con-
cept of renovative capacity is introduced in which the assumption is that there is
a finite depth of  soil in which major renovation occurs.  The  report was pre-
pared by a multidisciplined team including  hydrologists,  geologists,  climatol-
ogists, soil scientists,  and sanitary engineers.  The emphasis is on environ-
mental responses to land application,  but design components  are discussed.

4.  Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges: Selected Abstracts.
    Office  of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency.
    1974.

This document is a combined annotated bibliography of a wide range of subject-
matter related to application of sewage effluents and sludges  to the land.  Using
the EPA document, Agricultural Utilization of Sewage Effluent and Sludge (pre-
pared by Dr. Law) as a basis,  inputs were received from (1) the state-of-the-
art study by Pound and Crites (125],  (2) the literature survey by Sullivan [160],
(3) the Joint Conference at the University of Illinois (see No.  8), and (4) the
state-of-the-art assessment of sludge spreading conducted by Battelle Columbus.
These  selected abstracts have been indexed by  author, title,  and location (for
case studies). A strict division has been made between abstracts dealing with
effluents and those dealing with sludges.

5.  Green, R. L., G. L. Page, Jr., and W. M. Johnson.  Considerations for
    Preparation of Operation and Maintenance  Manuals.   Office of Water Pro-
    gram Operations, Environmental Protection Agency.

In these guidelines,  general considerations for the preparation of operation and
maintenance manuals are presented, and a format for the manual is suggested.
Each of the twelve chapters from the suggested format is then described in
detail with respect to content, scope,  and useful references.   Checklists are
included for evaluating the operation and maintenance manuals for both munici-
pal wastewater treatment facilities, and  for pumping station  and/or pipelines.
In addition, guidelines for estimating manual preparation costs are included.
                                     150
-------
6.   Sopper,  W. E.  and L. T. Kardos, (ed.).  Recycling Treated Municipal
     Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland.  University Park,
     Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.

The proceedings of a symposium co-sponsored by the Pennyslvania State
University, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and the
Environmental Protection Agency, and held in 1972 are presented in this  book.
Thirty-two separate papers are included, with topics ranging from the funda-
mentals of soil treatment systems to research needs.  Wastewater quality
changes during recycling,  and responses of the soil, vegetation,  and other ele-
ments of the ecosystem are discussed.   Examples of several operating and pro-
posed  systems are  reported, and the status of guidelines for land disposal of
Wastewater are discussed.

7.   Proceedings of Conference on Land  Disposal of Municipal Effluents and
     Sludges.  Rutgers University.  March 1973.

Current research and studies on land application of municipal effluents and
sludges are reported in nineteen separate papers.  Overviews of land treatment
are presented from the viewpoint of the Environmental Protection Agency, an
environmentalist, and a state regulatory director.  Topics relating to the current
knowledge of wastewater characteristics, fate of materials applied,  and public
health effects are addressed.  Preliminary results of Environmental Protection
Agency research and state-of-the-art studies are also given.

8.   Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
     Effluents on Land.  Champaign, Illinois.  July 1973.

This document includes information gathered at the Research Needs Workshop,
sponsored by the ad-hoc subcommittee of EPA-USDA-Universities representa-
tives.  In addition to reports of the ten workshop sessions, twenty-four individual
papers on aspects of soil treatment ranging from inorganic reactions in the  soil
to public acceptance of new systems are  presented.  Soil-plant relationships,  and
crop and food chain effects are described.  Some of the capabilities of the Soil
Conservation Service and the Agricultural Extension Service are  outlined  and
some informal opinions on the outlook of the  Food and Drug Administration are
given.

9.   Pair,  C. H. (ed.).  Sprinkler-Irrigation.  3rd Edition and Supplement.
     Silver Spring.  Sprinkler Irrigation Association.  1969 and 1973.

In this book,  all aspects of spray irrigation design from pumping plants to distri-
bution systems are  discussed.  Besides crop irrigation, uses of sprinklers  such
as for  environmental control (frost and heat control), fertilizer,  and chemical
applications, waste disposal, and fire protection are delineated.  Soil-plant-
water relations are explained with all current techniques for management of
irrigation.  Irrigation water requirements for many crops  are included along
                                     151
-------
with methods for determining water demands.  The text is especially useful in
the hydraulic design of sprinkler systems.

The supplement,  published in 1973, consists of an additional four chapters
including (1) turf irrigation,  (2)  continuously moving mechanical sprinkler sys-
tems,  (3) land application of liquid wastes (good design advice),  and (4) thermo-
plastic pipe.

10.   Zimmerman, J. P.  Irrigation.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.   1966.

In this book,  Zimmerman presents a comprehensive engineering approach to the
design of irrigation systems.  All aspects of the system are discussed, and a
wide range of design elements is described for each of the irrigation methods
(corrugation and  furrow, border strip, sprinkling,  flush flood spreading,  and
subirrigation).  Other elements  that are  related to the system, such as reser-
voirs,  canals, pumping, piping, and measuring devices, are also described.

11.  Drainage of Agricultural Land.  Soil Conservation Service, U. S.  Depart-
     ment of Agriculture.  Water Information Center, Inc.   1973.

This handbook, which was reproduced from the SCS National Engineering  Hand-
book, presents a complete discussion of  drainage principles as well as detailed
descriptions of design features.   Both surface and subsurface drainage are con-
sidered.  In addition, sections on dikes,  drainage pumping,  drainage of organic
soils,  and drainage of tidal lands are included.

12.  Chapman,  H. D.,  (ed.). Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils.  Abilene,
     Quality Printing Company, Inc.   1965.

In this  comprehensive reference, the effects of a large number of elements on
plants  and soils are described.   Methods for diagnosing the  existing status (defi-
ciencies  or toxic  levels) and control provisions are described for each element.
The effects of alkali and saline  soils,  and organic soil toxins are also consid-
ered.  In addition, an extensive  table is included, which shows levels of various
elements (ranging from deficient to toxic levels) for a large number of plants.

13.  Thomas,  R. E. and C. C.  Harlin, Jr.  Experiences with Land Spreading of
     Municipal Effluents.   First Annual IF AS Workshop on  Land Renovation of
     Wastewater in Florida.  Tampa,  Florida. June 1972.

An overview of the use of land application as a treatment process is presented,
in which  the three major methods (infiltration-percolation, cropland irrigation,
and spray-runoff) are defined.   The general applicability and potential  of each
method are discussed, and Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored research
projects  are described.
                                    152
-------
 14.   Thomas, R. E.  Spray-Runoff to Treat Raw Domestic Wastewater.
      International  Conference on Land for Waste Management.  Ottawa,
      Canada.  October 1973.

 Field studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency at Ada,
 Oklahoma, in which the capabilities of a spray-runoff (overland flow) system
 were evaluated, are described.  During the 18-month study period,  com-
 minuted raw wastewater was applied to three experimental plots at varying
 loading rates.  Results of the study are discussed, with removal efficiencies
 being reported for:  COD, BOD, TOC, nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended
 solids.

 15.   Bouwer,  H.,  R. C. Rice, and E.D. Escarcega.  Renovating Secondary
      Sewage by Ground Water Recharge with Infiltration Basins.  Office of
      Research and Monitoring,  Environmental Protection Agency.  March 1972.

 A five year infiltration-percolation demonstration project at Flushing Meadows,
 Arizona, is detailed in this report.  The feasibility of renovating activated sludge
 effluent was studied using six parallel basins in loamy sand.  The wide variety
 of application schedules that were tried are described in the report, and results
 of the groundwater analyses are given with respect to: suspended solids, BOD,
 fecal coliform, nitrogen, phosphorus, fluorides,  boron, and heavy metals.
 Special emphasis is given to nitrogen removal.

 16.   Law, J. P., R. E. Thomas, and L. H. Myers.  Cannery Wastewater Treat-
      ment by High-Rate Spray on Grassland.  Journal WPCF, 42, No. 9,
      pp 1621-1631.   1970.

 A one-year study of an industrial spray-runoff (overland flow) system in Paris,
 Texas,  is described in this report.  Four  separate plots of varying slopes,
 lengths, soil conditions, and periods of operation were studied.  Summaries of
 quality analyses are presented for the wastewater applied, system effluent, and
 soil water.  Removal efficiencies are presented with respect to: BOD, COD,
 suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

 17.   Kirby,  C. F.  Sewage Treatment Farms.  Department of Civil Engineering.
      University of  Melbourne.   1971.

 In this paper, the three methods of treating wastewater from the City of
 Melbourne — land filtration,  grass filtration, and lagooning — are discussed.   The
 land filtration process consists of pasture irrigation with grazing by cattle and
 sheep.  Grass filtration, known in the United States as overland.flow, is notable
because it is the only known full-scale system using municipal wastewater.  Also
of note is the fact that in this system wastewater is applied by flooding, as op-
posed to spraying, which is the only application method presently employed by
U. S. industries.  Loadings and removals of various wastewater constituents are
included in the paper.
                                    153
-------
                                Appendix C

                GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS,
                            AND CONVERSION FACTORS
TERMS
Adsorption — A process in which soluble substances are attracted to and held at
the surface of soil particles.

Aerosol — A suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in air or gas.

Alkali soil — A soil with a high degree of alkalinity (pH of 8.5 or higher) or with
a high exchangeable sodium content (15 percent or more of the exchange capac-
ity), or both.

Application rate — The rate at which a liquid is dosed to the land (in./hr, fl/yr,
etc.).

Aquifer — A geologic formation or stratum that contains water and transmits it
from one point to another in quantities sufficient to permit economic development.

Border strip method — Application of water over the surface of the soil.  Water
is applied at the upper end of the long, relatively narrow strip.

Conductivity  — Quality or capability of transmitting and receiving.  Normally
used with respect to electrical conductivity (EC).

Consumptive use — Synonymous with evapotranspiration.

Contour check method — Surface application by flooding. Dikes constructed at
contour intervals to hold the water.

Conventional wastewater treatment — Reduction of pollutant concentrations in
wastewater by physical, chemical, or biological means.

Drainability — Ability of the soil system to accept and transmit water by infil-
tration and percolation.

Evapotranspiration — The unit amount of water used on a given area in trans-
piration, building of plant tissue, and evaporation from adjacent soil, snow,  or
intercepted precipitation in any specified time.
                                    155
-------
Field area — Total area of treatment for a land-application system including the
wetted area.

Fixation — A combination of physical and chemical mechanisms in the soil that
act to retain waste-water constituents within the soil, including adsorption,
chemical precipitation, and ion exchange.

Flooding — A method of surface application of water which includes border strip,
contour check, and spreading methods.

Grass filtration — See overland flow.

Groundwater — The body of water that is retained in the saturated zone which
tends to move by hydraulic gradient to lower levels.

Groundwater table - The free surface elevation of the groundwater; this level
will rise and fall with additions or withdrawals.

Infiltration — The entrance of applied water into the soil through the soil-water
interface.

Infiltration-percolation — An approach to land application in which large volumes
of wastewater are  applied to the land, infiltrate the surface, and percolate
through the  soil pores.

Irrigation — Application of water to the land to meet the growth needs of plants.

Land application — The discharge of wastewater onto the soil for treatment or
reuse.

Lithology —  The study of rocks; primarily mineral composition.

Loading rate — The average amount of liquid  or solids applied to the land over a
fixed time period,  taking into account periodic resting.

Lysimeter — A device for measuring percolation and leaching losses from a
column of soil.  Also a device for collecting  soil water  in the field.

Micronutrient — A  chemical element necessary in only small amounts (less  than
1 mg/L) for  microorganism and plant growth.

Mineralization — The conversion of an element from an  organic form to an
inorganic form as  a result of microbial decomposition.

Overland flow — Wastewater treatment by spray-runoff  (also known as "grass
filtration" and "spray runoff") in which  wastewater is sprayed onto gently slop-
ing, relatively impermeable soil that has been planted to vegetation. Biological
oxidation occurs as the wastewater flows over the ground and contacts the biota
in the vegetative litter.
                                    156
-------
Pathogenic organisms — Microorganisms that can transmit diseases.

Percolation — The movement of water beneath the ground surface both vertically
and horizontally, but above the groundwater table.

Permeability — The ability of a substance (soil) to allow appreciable movement
of water through it when saturated and actuated by a hydrostatic pressure.

Phytotoxic — Toxic to plants.

Primary effluent - Wastewater that has been treated by screening and
sedimentation.

Ridge and furrow method - The surface application of water to the land through
formed furrows; wastewater flows down the furrows and plants may be grown
on the ridges.

Saline soil - A nonalkali soil containing sufficient soluble salts to impair its
productivity.

Secondary treatment — Treatment of wastewater which meets the standards set
forth in 40 CFR  133.

Sewage farming — Originally involved the transporting of sewage to rural areas
for land disposal.  Later practice  included reusing the water for irrigation and
fertilization of crops.

Soil texture — The relative proportions of the various soil separates — sand,
silt, and clay.

Soil water - That water present in the soil pores in an unsaturated zone above
the groundwater table.

Spraying — Application of water to  the land by means of stationary or moving
sprinklers.

Spray-runoff — See overland flow.

Tilth — The physical condition of a soil as related to its ease of cultivation.

Transpiration — The net quantity of water absorbed through plant roots that is
used directly in building plant tissue, or given off to the atmosphere.

Viruses — Submicroscopic biological structures  containing all the information
necessary for their own reproduction.

Wetted  area — Area within the spray diameter of the sprinklers.
                                    157
-------
ABBREVIATIONS



acre-ft   — acre-foot



BOD     — biochemical oxygen demand



BPT     - best practicable treatment technology



cm      — centimeter



COD     — chemical oxygen demand



cu. m    — cubic meter



deg C    — degree Centigrade



deg F    — degree Fahrenheit



EC      — electrical conductivity



ECdw    — maximum EC of drainage water permissible for plant growth



ECe     — EC of saturation extract (from soil)



ECw     — EC of irrigation water



ENRCC  — Engineering News-Record construction cost (index)



FDA     — Food and Drug Administration



fps      — feet per second



ft        - foot



gal.      - gallon



gpm     — gallons per minute



ha       — hectare



hr       — hour



in.       — inch



kg       — kilogram



1        - liter
                                  158
-------
Ib       — pound




m       — meter




max     — maximum



mgd     — million gallons per day



mg/1    — milligrams per liter




min     — minute



ml       — milliliter



mm     ~ millimeter



mmho/cm— millimhos per centimeter



MPN    — most probable number



ppm     ~ parts per million




psi       — pounds per square inch



SAR     — sodium adsorption ratio



SCS     — Soil Conservation Service



sec      — second



sq ft     ~ square foot




SS       — suspended solids



STPCC   — sewage treatment plant construction cost (index)




TOC     — total organic carbon



TDS     — total dissolved solids



USDA    — U. S. Department of Agriculture




USGS    - U. S. Geological Survey



wk       — week



yr       - year
                                  159
-------
SYMBOLS



B        — boron



Ca       — calcium



Cu       — copper



K        — potassium



Fe       — iron



Mg      — magnesium



Mn      - manganese



N        — nitrogen



Na       - sodium



NH_     — ammonia
   o


NOQ     — nitrate
   o


P        — phosphorus



S        — sulfur



Zn       — zinc



>        — greater than



<        — less than



M        — micro



CONVERSION FACTORS



million gallons x  3.06 = acre-feet



acre-inch x 27,154 =  gallons



mg/1 x ft/yr x  2. 7 =  Ib/acre/yr



mgd x  43.814  =  1/s



million gallons x  3785 = cu. m
                                  160
-------
 acre x  0.4047  = ha



 acre-feet x 1234 = cu. m



 Ib/acre x 1.121 = kg/ha



inch x 2.540 =  cm



ft x 30.48  = cm
                                161
-------
                                         Appendix D
                  TYPICAL SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR
                            LAND-APPLICATION  SYSTEMS

                                  Table D-l.  IRRIGATION
                                                                 Unit"
                      Item
  English
 Metric
Value
 Flow
   Design flow, avg annual
   Design peak flow
 Field area
 Water balance
   Design total annual precipitation
      Return period
   Design evapotranspi ration
   Design percolation rate
   Effluent application rate0
 Nitrogen (as N) loading rate0
 Other constituent loading rate0
 Effluent water quality
   TDS
   Sodium adsorption ratio
 Application rates
   Length of operating season
   Hourly rate (spray application)
   Application period
   Application cycle
   Avg weekly rate
   Max weekly rate6
Storage capacity
 Rate of recovery of renovated water
mgd
mgd
acres

in. /yr
yr
in. /yr
in. /yr
in. /yr
Ib/acre/yr
Ib/acre/yr

mg/1
SAR

wk/yr
in. /hr
hr
day
in. /wk
in. /wk
mg
mgd
1/s
I/a
hectares
cm/yr
yr
cm/yr
cm/yr
cm/yr
kg/ha/yr
kg/ha/yr


mg/l
SAR

wk/yr
cm/hr
hr
day
cm/wk
cm/wk
cu m
1/s
a.  Typical units are given with a choice between English and Metric systems.
b.  When design values of different return periods are used for determining liquid loading rates and
    storage capacities, both values should be shown.
c.  If critical, indicate with an asterisk.
d.  Combination of one application period and one drying period.
e.  Includes additional flow from storage withdrawal.
                                            163
-------
                   Table D-2.   INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION
                                                                Unit
Item
Flow
Design flow, avg annual
Design peak flow
Field area
Water balance
Design total annual precipitation
Return period
Design evapotranspiration
Design percolation rate
Effluent application rate0
Design runoff rate
Organic (BOD) loading rate
Nitrogen (as N) loading rate0
Q
Phosphorus loading rate
Other constituent loading rate
Application rates
Length of operating season
Avg weekly rate
Max weekly rate
Application period
Resting period
Storage
Rate or recovery of renovated water
English

mgd
mgd
acres

in. /yr
yr
in. /yr
in. /yr
in. /yr
in. /yr
Ib/acre/yr
Ib/acre/yr
Ib/acre/yr
Ib/acre/yr

wk/yr
in. /wk
in. /wk
hr
hr
mg
mgd
Metric Value

1/8 	
1/s 	
hectares 	

cm/yr 	
yr 	
cm/yr 	
cm/yr 	
cm/yr 	
cm/yr ,
kg/ha/yr
kgAa/yr 	
ke'/ha/vr
UjT/ha /yr

wk/yr 	
cm/wk 	
cm/wk 	
hr 	
hr 	
cu m 	
1/s 	
a.  Typical units are given with a choice between English and Metric systems.

b.  When design values of different return periods are used for determining liquid loading rates and
    storage capacities, both values should be shown.

c.  If critical, indicate with an asterisk.
                                         164
-------
                            Table D-3.  OVERLAND FLOW
Item
Flow
Design flow, avg annual
Design peak flow
Field area
No. of basins or plots
Total area
Water balance
Design total annual precipitation
Return period
Design evapotranspiration
Design percolation rate
Effluent application rate
Organic (BOD) loading rate0
Nitrogen (as N) loading rate0
Phosphorus loading rate0
Other constituent loading rate0
Application rates
Length of operating season
Application period
Rated
Drying or resting period
Storage capacity
Rate of recovery of renovated water
Unit*
English

mgd
mgd


acres
in. /yr
yr
In. /yr
ft/yr
ft/yr
Ib/acre/yr
Ib/acre/yr
Ib/acre/yr
Ib/acre/yr

wk/yr
day
in. /day
day
rog
mgd

Metric Value

1/s 	
1/S 	


hectares 	
cm/yr 	
yr
cm/yr 	
m/yr 	
m/yr 	
kg/ha/yr 	
kg/ha/yr 	
U-jr/ha/yi*
kg/ha/yr 	

wk/yr 	
day — —
cm/day 	
day 	
cu m 	
1/s 	
a.
    Typical units are given with a choice between English and Metric systems.
b.  When design values of different return periods are used for determining liquid loading rates and
    storage capacities, both values should be shown.
    Indicate critical loading rate by means of asterisk.
c.
d.  Include ranges of periods and rates if significant seasonal variations exist.
                                           165
-------
                                Appendix E

                  PROPOSED CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
The following is a set of regulations that has been proposed to replace existing
California regulations.  It is offered only as an example.
STATEWIDE RECLAMATION CRITERIA FOR USE OF RECLAIMED WATER FOR
IRRIGATION AND RECREATIONAL IMPOUNDMENTS

California Administrative Code,  Title 17,  Chapter 5, Subchapter 1,  Group 12


                           Article 1.  Definitions

      8025.  Definitions,  (a) Reclaimed Water.  Reclaimed water means water
which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use
or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur.

      (b) Reclamation Plant.  Reclamation plant means an arrangement of de-
vices, structures, equipment,  processes and controls which produce a reclaimed
water suitable for the intended reuse.

      (c) Regulatory Agency.  Regulatory agency means the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board in whose jurisdication the reclamation plant is
located.

      (d) Direct Beneficial Use.   Direct beneficial use means the use of re-
claimed water which has been transported from the point of production to the
point of use without an intervening discharge to waters  of the State.

      (e) Food Crops.  Food crops mean any crops intended for human
consumption.

      (f)  Spray Irrigation.  Spray irrigation means application  of reclaimed
water to crops by spraying it from orifices in piping.

      (g) Surface Irrigation. Surface irrigation means application of reclaimed
water by means other than spraying such that contact between the edible portion
of any food crop and reclaimed water is prevented.

      (h) Restricted Recreational Impoundment.  A restricted recreational im-
poundment is a body of reclaimed water in which recreation is limited to fishing,
boating, and other non-body-contact water recreation activities.
                                   167
-------
      (i)  Non-Restricted Recreational Impoundment.  A non-restricted
recreational impoundment is an impoundment of reclaimed water in which no
limitations are imposed on body-contact water sport activities.

      (j)  Landscape Impoundment.  A landscape impoundment is a body of re-
claimed water which is used for aesthetic enjoyment or which otherwise serves
a function intended to exclude public contact.

      (k) Approved Laboratory Methods. Approved laboratory methods are
those specified in the latest edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, " prepared and .published jointly by the American Public
Health Association, the American Water Works Association, and the Water Pol-
lution Control Federation, and which are conducted in laboratories approved by
the State Department of Health.

      (1)  Unit Process.  Unit process means an individual stage in the waste-
water treatment sequence which performs a major single operation.

      (m) Primary Effluent.  Primary effluent is the effluent from a sewage
treatment process which provides partial removal of sewage solids by physical
methods  so that it contains not more than 0.5 milliliter per liter per hour of
settleable solids as determined by an approved laboratory method.

      (n) Oxidized Wastewater.  Oxidized wastewater means wastewater in which
the organic matter has been stabilized, is nonputrescible, and contains dissolved
oxygen.

      (o) Biological Treatment.  Biological treatment means methods of waste-
water treatment in which bacterial or biochemical action  is intensified as a
means of producing an oxidized wastewater as defined in (n).

      (p) Secondary Sedimentation.  Secondary sedimentation means the removal
by gravity of settleable solids remaining in the effluent after the biological treat-
ment process.

      (q) Coagulated Wastewater.  Coagulated wastewater means oxidized waste-
water in. which colloidal and finely divided suspended matter has been destabilized
and agglomerated by the addition of suitable floe-forming chemicals or by an
equally effective method.

      (r) Filtered Wastewater.  Filtered wastewater means an oxidized coagu-
lated wastewater which has been passed through natural undisturbed soils or
filter media,  such, as sand or diatomaceous earth, so that the turbidity as deter-
mined by an approved laboratory method does not exceed  an average operating
turbidity of 2 turbidity units and does not exceed 5 turbidity units more than
5 percent of the time during any 24-hour period.
                                   168
-------
      (s) Disinfected Wastewater.  Disinfected wastewater means wastewater in
which the pathogenic organisms have been destroyed by chemical, physical,  or
biological means.

      (t)  Multiple Units.  Multiple units mean two or more units of a treatment
process which operate  in parallel and serve the same function.

      (u) Standby Unit  Process.   A standby unit process is an alternate unit
process which is maintained in operable condition and which is capable of pro-
viding comparable treatment for the entire design flow in the event that the unit
for which it is a substitute becomes inoperative.

      (v) Power Source.  Power source means a source of supplying energy to
operate unit processes.

      (w) Standby Power Source.  Standby power source means an alternate
energy source such as  an engine driven generator, maintained in immediately
operable condition and  of sufficient capacity to provide necessary service during
failure of the normal power supply.

      (x) Alarm.  Alarm means an instrument or device which continuously
monitors a specific function of a treatment process  and automatically gives
warning of an unsafe or undesirable condition by means of visual and audible
signals.

      (y) Person.   Person also includes any city, county, district, the State or
any department or agency thereof.
                     Article 2.  Irrigation of Food Crops

      8030.  Spray Irrigation.   Reclaimed water used for the spray irrigation
of food crops shall be at all times an adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagu-
lated, filtered wastewater.  The wastewater shall be considered adequately dis-
infected if at some location in the treatment process the median number of
coliform organisms does not exceed 2. 2 per 100 milliliters and the number of
coliform organisms in any sample does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters.  The
median value shall be determined from the bacteriological results  of the last 7
days for which analyses have been completed.

      8031.  Surface Irrigation,  (a) Reclaimed water used for surface irriga-
tion of food crops shall be at all times an adequately disinfected, oxidized
wastewater.  The wastewater shall  be considered adequately disinfected if at
some location in the treatment process the median number of coliform orga-
nisms does not exceed 2. 2 per  100 milliliters,  as determined from the bacteri-
ological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have bee-  completed.
                                     169
-------
      (b) Orchards and vineyards may be surface irrigated with reclaimed water
that has the quality at least equivalent to that of primary effluent provided that no
fruit is harvested that has come in contact with the irrigating water or the ground.

      8032.  Exceptions.   Exceptions to the quality requirements for reclaimed
water used for irrigation of food crops may be considered by the State Depart-
ment of Health on an individual case basis where the reclaimed water is to be
used to irrigate a food crop which must undergo extensive commercial, physical,
or chemical processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic agents before it is  suit-
able for human consumption.
            Article 3.  Irrigation of Fodder, Fiber, and Seed Crops

      8035.  Fodder, Fiber, and Seed Crops.  Reclaimed water used for the
surface or spray irrigation of fodder,  fiber, and seed crops shall have a level of
quality no less than that of primary effluent.

      8036.  Pasture for Milking Animals.  Reclaimed water used for the irriga-
tion of pasture to which milking cows or goats have access shall be at all times
an adequately disinfected, oxidized wastewater.  The wastewater shall be con-
sidered adequately disinfected if at some location in the treatment process the
median number of coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters, as
determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses
have been completed.
                       Article 4.  Landscape Irrigation

      8039.  Landscape Irrigation.  Reclaimed water used for the irrigation of
golf courses, cemeteries, lawns, parks, playgrounds, freeway landscapes,  and
landscapes in other areas where the public has access shall be at all times an
adequately disinfected, oxidized wastewater.   The wastewater shall be considered
adequately disinfected if at some location in the treatment process the median
number of coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters, as deter-
mined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have
been completed.
                    Article 5.  Recreational Impoundments

      8042.  Non-Restricted Recreational Impoundment.  Reclaimed water used
as a source of supply in a non-restricted recreational impoundment shall be at
all times an adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated,  filtered wastewater.
The wastewater shall be considered adequately disinfected if at some location in
the treatment process the median number of coliform organisms does not exceed
                                     170
-------
2.2 per 100 milliliters and the number of coliform organisms in any sample does
not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters.  The median value shall be determined from the
bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed.

      8043. Restricted Recreational Impoundment. Reclaimed water used as a
source of supply in a restricted recreational impoundment shall be at all times
an adequately disinfected, oxidized wastewater.  The wastewater shall be con-
sidered adequately disinfected if at some location in the treatment process the
median number of coliform organisms does not exceed 2. 2 per 100 milliliters,
as determined from the bacteriological results of the last 7 days for which anal-
yses have been completed.

      8044. Landscape Impoundment.  Reclaimed water used as a source of sup-
ply in a landscape impoundment shall be at all times an adequately disinfected,
oxidized wastewater.  The wastewater shall be considered adequately disinfected
if at some location in the treatment process the median number of coliform
organisms does not exceed 23 per 100 milliliters,  as determined from the bac-
teriological results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed.
                     Article 6.  Sampling and Analysis

      8047.  Sampling and Analysis,  (a)  Samples for settleable solids and coli-
form bacteria, where required, shall be collected at least daily and at a time
when wastewater characteristics (highest organic and hydraulic mass loading)
are most demanding on the treatment facilities and disinfection procedures.
Turbidity analysis,  where required,  shall be performed by a continuous record-
ing turbidimeter.

      (b) For uses  requiring a level of quality no less than that of primary efflu-
ent, samples shall be analyzed by an approved laboratory method for settleable
solids.

      (c) For uses  requiring an adequately disinfected,  oxidized wastewater,
samples shall be analyzed by an approved  laboratory method for coliform bac-
teria content.

      (d) For uses  requiring an adequately disinfected,  oxidized,  coagulated,
filtered wastewater, samples shall be analyzed by approved laboratory methods
for turbidity and coliform bacteria content.
                                       171
-------
         Article 7.  Engineering Report and Operational Requirements

      8050.  Engineering Report,  (a)  No person shall produce or supply
reclaimed water as defined in Section 13050 (n) of the Water Code for direct
reuse from a proposed water reclamation plant unless he files an engineering
report in accordance with Water Code Section 13522.5.

      (b) The report shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered in California
and experienced in the field of wastewater treatment, and shall contain a descrip-
tion of the design of the proposed reclamation system.  The report shall clearly
indicate the means for compliance with these regulations and any other features
specified by the regulatory agency.

      8051.  Personnel,  (a)  Each reclamation plant shall be provided with suf-
ficient number of qualified personnel to operate the facility effectively so as to
achieve the required level of treatment at all times.

      (b) Qualified personnel shall be those meeting requirements established
pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 13625) of the Water Code.

      8052.  Maintenance.  An equipment  maintenance program shall  be pro-
vided at each reclamation plant to ensure  that all equipment is kept in a highly
reliable operating condition.

      8053.  Operational Records and Reports,  (a) Operating records shall be
maintained at the reclamation plant or a centralized depository within the oper-
ating agency.  These shall include all analyses specified in the reclamation
criteria and records of operational problems, plant and equipment breakdowns,
diversions to emergency storage or disposal,  and all corrective or preventive
action taken.

      (b) Process or equipment failures triggering an alarm shall be recorded
and maintained as a separate record file.   The recorded information shall  in-
clude the time and cause of failure and.corrective action taken.

      (c) A monthly summary of operating records as specified under (a) and
(b) in this section shall be filed monthly with the regulatory agency.

      (d) Any discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater to the use
area, and the cessation of same, shall be reported by telephone to the regula-
tory agency, the State Department of Health, and the local health officer.

      8054.  Bypass. There shall be no bypassing of untreated or partially
treated wastewater from the reclamation plant or any intermediate unit pro-
cesses to the point of use.
                                     172
-------
                 Article 8.  General Requirements of Design

      8057.  Flexibility of Design.  The design of process piping,  equipment
arrangement,- and unit structures in the reclamation plant must allow for effi-
ciency and convenience in operation and maintenance and provide flexibility of
operation to permit the highest possible degree of treatment to be obtained under
varying circumstances.

      8058.  Alarms,  (a)  Alarm devices required for various unit processes as
specified in other sections of these regulations shall be installed to provide warn-
ing of at least the following process failures:

          (1)  Loss of power from normal power supply.

          (2)  Loss of air supply or any other event which may result in failure
              of a biological treatment process.

          (3)  Loss of chlorine supply,  low chlorine residual, failure of injector
              water supply,  and any other event  which  may result in failure of a
              disinfection process.

          (4)  Loss of coagulant feed and  any other event which may result in
              failure of a coagulation process.

          (5)  Excessive headloss,  excessive turbidity, and any other event or
              parameter which may result in failure of a filtration process.

          (6)  Any other specific process failure for which warning is required
              by the regulatory agency.

      (b)  All required alarm devices shall be independent of the main power sup-
ply of the  reclamation plant.

      (c)  The person to be warned shall be the plant operator,  superintendent, or
any other  responsible person designated by the management of the reclamation
plant and capable of taking prompt corrective action.

      (d)  Individual alarm devices may be connected to a master alarm to sound
at a location where it can be conveniently  observed by the attendant.  In case the
reclamation plant is not attended full time, alarm(s) shall be connected to sound
at a police station, fire station or other full time service unit with which arrange-
ments have been made to alert the person in charge at times that the reclama-
tion plant  is unattended.

      8059.   Power Supply.  Provisions shall be made for substitute power in the
event of failure of the normal power supply including one of the following relia-
bility features:
                                    173
-------
      (a)  Alarm and standby power source,  including automatic switchover to
self-starting standby power source if the plant will not be attended continuously.

      (b)  Alarm and automatically actuated  short-term retention provisions for
untreated wastewater as specified in Section 8064.

      (c)  Automatically actuated  long-term  emergency storage or disposal pro-
visions for untreated wastewater  as specified in Section 8064.
             Article 9.  Alternative Reliability Requirements for
                        Uses Permitting Primary Effluent

      8061.  Primary Treatment.  Reclamation plants producing reclaimed water
exclusively for uses for which primary effluent is permitted shall be provided
with one of the  following reliability features:

      (a)  Multiple or standby primary treatment units,  as specified in Section
8064, capable of providing essentially unimpaired treatment when one unit is
taken out of service.

      (b)  Long-term emergency storage or disposal provisions as specified in
Section 8064.
           Article 10.  Alternative Reliability Requirements for Uses
                       Requiring Oxidized, Disinfected Wastewater or
                       Oxidized, Coagulated, Filtered, Disinfected
                       Wastewater

      8064.  Definitions Relating to Reliability Requirements,  (a) Multiple
biological treatment units mean multiple tanks and multiple units of all critical
process equipment such as blowers,  aerators, and recirculation pumps.

      (b)  Standby replacement equipment means reserve parts and equipment
such as pumps, valves, controls, and instruments to replace broken-down or
worn-out units which can be assembled and placed in operation within a 24-hour
period.

      (c)  Uninterrupted coagulant feed means all of the following mandatory
features:  standby feeders, adequate chemical storage and conveyance facilities,
adequate reserve chemical supply, automatic dosage control, and alarms to warn
of equipment breakdown.

      (d)  Uninterrupted chlorine feed means the following mandatory features:
standby chlorine supply,  manifold systems to connect chlorine cylinder scales;
alarms to warn of malfunctions, automatic devices for switching over to full
                                      174
-------
chlorine cylinders, and in addition may require automatic residual control of
chlorine dosage,  automatic  measuring and recording of chlorine residual, and
hydraulic performance studies.

      (e)  A standby chlorinator means a duplicate chlorinator for reclamation
plants having one chlorinator; duplicate of the largest unit for plants having mul-
tiple chlorinator units.  All standby equipment shall be maintained in immediate
operable condition.

      (f)  Multiple point chlorination means that chlorine will be applied simul-
taneously at the reclamation plant and at subsequent chlorination stations located
at the use area and/or some intermediate point.  It does not include chlorine
application for odor control purposes.

      (g)  Where short-term retention is provided as a reliability feature, it
shall consist of facilities reserved for the purpose of storing or disposing of
untreated or partially treated wastewater for at least a 24-hour period.  The
facilities shall include all the necessary diversion devices,  provisions for odor
control,  conduits and pumping and pump back equipment, and shall be either
independent of normal power or provided with a standby power  source.

      (h)  Where long-term  emergency storage or disposal provisions are used as
a reliability feature, these shall consist of ponds, reservoirs,  percolation areas,
downstream sewers leading to other treatment or disposal facilities or  any other
facilities reserved for the purpose of emergency storage or disposal of untreated
or partially treated wastewater.  These facilities shall be of sufficient capacity
to provide disposal or storage of wastewater for at least 20  days,  and shall
include  all the necessary diversion works, provisions for odor and nuisance con-
trol, conduits and pumping and pump back equipment.  The emergency equipment
shall be either independent of normal power or provided  with a standby  power
source.

           (1)  Diversion to a less demanding reuse is an acceptable alternative
     to emergency disposal of partially treated wastewater provided that the
     quality of the partially treated wastewater is suitable for the less demanding
     reuse.

           (2)  Subject to prior approval by the regulatory agency, diversion to a
     discharge point which  requires lesser quality of wastewater is an acceptable
     alternative to emergency disposal of partially treated wastewater.

           (3)  Automatically actuated long-term emergency storage or disposal
     provisions shall include,  in addition to provisions of part (h) of this section,
     or parts (1) or (2) of this subsection, all the necessary sensors, instru-
     ments,  valves and other devices to enable fully automatic diversion of un-
     treated or partially treated wastewater to approved emergency storage or
     disposal in the event of failure of a treatment process, and a manual reset
     to prevent automatic restart until the failure is.corrected.
                                      175
-------
      (i) Multiple or standby primary treatment units mean multiple or standby
tanks and multiple or standby units of all critical process equipment such as
sludge transfer facilities.

      8065.   Primary Effluent.  All primary treatment unit processes shall be
provided with one of the following reliability features:

      (a)  Multiple units to enable partial treatment of wastewater with one unit
not in operation.

      (b)  Standby primary treatment  unit process.

      (c)  Long-term emergency storage or disposal provisions.

      8066.   Biological Treatment.  All biological treatment unit processes shall
be provided with  one of the following reliability features:

      (a)  Alarm  and multiple biological treatment units capable of producing
oxidized, wastewater with one unit not in operation.

      (b)  Alarm, short-term retention provisions, and standby replacement
equipment.

      (c)  Alarm  and long-term  emergency storage or disposal provisions.

      (d)  Automatically actuated long-term emergency storage  or disposal
provisions.

      8067.   Secondary Sedimentation.  All secondary sedimentation unit pro-
cesses shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:

      (a)  Multiple sedimentation units capable of providing essentially unimpaired
treatment when one unit is taken out of  service.

      (b)  Standby sedimentation unit process.

      (c)  Long-term emergency storage or disposal provisions.

      8068.   Coagulation.   All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with
special provisions for uninterrupted coagulant feed and one of the following reli-
ability features:

      (a)  Alarm  and multiple coagulation units capable of treating the entire flow
with one unit not  in operation.

      (b)  Alarm, short-term retention provisions and standby replacement
equipment.
                                       176
-------
      (c)  Alarm and long-term emergency storage or disposal provisions.

      (d)  Automatically actuated long-term emergency storage or disposal
provisions.

      (e)  Alarm and standby coagulation unit process.

      8069.  Filtration.  All filtration unit processes shall be provided with one
of the following reliability features:

      (a)  Alarm and multiple filter units capable of treating the entire flow with
one unit not in operation.

      (b)  Alarm,  short-term retention provisions and standby replacement
equipment.

      (c)  Alarm and long-term emergency storage or disposal provisions.

      (d)  Automatically actuated long-term emergency storage or disposal
provisions,

      (e)  Alarm and standby filtration unit process.

      8070.  Disinfection.  All disinfection unit processes where chlorine is used
as the disinfectant shall be provided with features for uninterrupted chlorine feed
and one of the following reliability features:

      (a)  Alarm and standby chlorinator.

      (b)  Alarm,  short-term retention provisions and standby replacement
equipment.

      (c)  Alarm and long-term emergency storage or disposal provisions.

      (d)  Automatically actuated long-term emergency storage or disposal
provisions.

      (e)  Alarm and multiple point chlorination,  each with independent power
source, separate chlorinator,  and separate chlorine supply.

      8071.   Other Alternatives to Reliability Requirements.  Other alternatives
to reliability requirements set forth in Articles 8 to 10 may be accepted if the
applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the regulatory agency that the pro-
posed alternative will assure an equal degree of reliability.
                                    177
-------
                   Article 11.  Other Methods of Treatment

      8072.  Other Methods of Treatment.  Methods of treatment other than those
included in this chapter and their reliability features will be evaluated by the
regulatory agency on a case-by-case basis.
                                    178
-------
                              Appendix F

                          SOURCES OF DATA
To assist the evaluator and engineer in data-gathering and evaluation, some
major sources of data are listed for climate, topography, soil characteristics,
geologic formations, groundwater,  and receiving water.  It must be stressed
that these do not represent all the possible sources of data.

CLIMATE

Information on precipitation,  temperature, humidity, and winds maybe obtained
from the following sources:

      •  National Weather Service,  local offices

      •  Climatological Data, published by the National Weather Service,
        Department of Commerce

      •  Airports

      •  Universities

      •  Military installations

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is preparing a
report for EPA on weather parameters that influence winter operations of land-
application systems.  This report,  when available  in early 1975, should be an
excellent source of climatological data.

Additionally, data on evapotranspiration can usually be obtained from the follow-
ing sources:

      •  Agricultural Extension Service

      •  Agricultural Experiment Stations

      •  Agencies managing large water reservoirs

TOPOGRAPHY

Topographic maps and aerial photographs  can provide much  of the information
needed to analyze the topography.  Topographic maps are most widely available
from the U. S.  Geological Survey in 7. 5- and  15-minute quadrangles.  Aerial
photographs, when they exist, may  be located by contacting the following sources:
                                     179
-------
      • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Commodity Stabilization program

      • Local or county planning departments

      • U.S. Corps of Engineers offices

      • Private photogrammetry and mapping companies

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

Consultation with the Soil Conservation Service (U. S.  Department of
Agriculture) to obtain information on soil characteristics is highly recom-
mended. SCS offices exist in most counties; however, each county office does
not necessarily have a soil scientist.  The state soil scientists should therefore
be contacted.  Additionally, SCS has published many soil maps with  descriptions
of soil characteristics to a depth of 5 feet.  These descriptions include ground-
slopes, existing land use, erosion potential, and surface drainage, which are also
important considerations.  Agricultural Extension Service representatives, con-
sulting soil scientists, or agronomists may have additional information on soil
characteristics.

GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS

The U.S. Geological Service is the primary source of data on geological forma-
tions.  Geologic maps and investigative reports are available for many areas.
State mine and geology agencies may also have information on geologic forma-
tions in terms of maps or reports.

GROUNDWATER

Data on groundwater may come from a number of different sources, such as
state water resource agencies, the U.S.  Geological Service, local or county
water conservation districts, and users of groundwater  (municipalities,  water
companies, and individuals).

RECEIVING WATER

The  U.S. Geological Service has monitoring gages on  most large streams  and
many small ones.  In addition to this flow data, data on temperature and mineral
quality are collected.  The EPA has a computer storage system (called STORET)
that  contains a great deal of water-quality data from one-time studies and  con-
tinuous monitoring by federal, state, and local agencies.  STORET  output  can
be obtained at Regional EPA offices.
                                     180
-------
                                      Appendix G
               COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS  GUIDELINES
                             (40 CFR 35  - Appendix A)

                           Title 40—Protection of the Environment
                               CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
                                    PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   SUBCHAPTER  D—CHANTS
                                PART  35—STATE  AND LOCAL
                                        ASSISTANCE
                           Appendix A—Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
                            On July 3, 1973, notice was published
                          in the FEDERAL REGISTER  that the En-
                          vironmental Protection Agency was pro-
                          posing guidelines  on cost-effectiveness
                          analysis pursuant to section 212(2) (c) of
                          the Federal Water Pollution Act Amend-
                          ments of  1972 (the Act) to be published
                          as* appendix A to  40  CFR part 35.
                            Written  comments  on  the proposed
                          rulemaking  were  invited  and received
                          from  interested parties.  The Environ-
                          mental Protection Agency has carefully
                          considered  all  comments  received.  No
                          changes were made in the guidelines as
                          earlier proposed.  All  written comments
                          are on file with the agency.
                            Effective date.—These regulations shall
                          become effective October 10, 1973.
                            Dated September 4,1973.
                                                JOHN QUARLES,
                                          Acting Administrator.
               APPENDIX A
  COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

  a.  Purpose.—These  guidelines provide  a
basic methodology for  determining the most
cost-effective waste  treatment management
system or the most cost-effective component
part of any waste  treatment management
system.
  b.  Authority.—The  guidelines contained
herein are provided  pursuant to section 212
(2) (C) of the Federal  Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act).
  c.  Applicability.—These guidelines  apply
to the development of plans for  and the
selection of component  parts  of  a  waste
treatment management system  for which a
Federal grant is awarded  under  40  CFR,
Part 35.
  d.  Definitions.—Definitions of terms used
In these  guidelines  are as follows:
  (1)  Waste treatment  management  sys-
tem.—A system used to restore the Integrity
of the  Nation's waters. Waste treatment
management system is used synonymously
with  "treatment works" as  defined  in 40
CFR, Part 35.905-15.
  (2) Cost-eflcctiveness analysis.—An analy-
sis  performed  to  determine  which  waste
treatment management system  or  compo-
nent part thereof will result In the minimum
total resources costs over time  to meet the
Federal,  State or local requirements.
  (3)  Planning period.—The  period  over
which  a  waste treatment management sys-
tem is evaluated for cost-effectiveness. The
planning period commences  with the initial
operation of the system.
  (4) Service li/e —The period of time dur-
ing which a component of  a waste treat-
ment management  system will be capable of
performing  a function.
  (5) Vscjul life —The period of time dur-
ing which a component of  a waste treat-
ment management system will be required to
perform a  function  which is necessary to
the system's operation.
  e.  Identification, selection  and  screening
of alternatives—(1) Identification of alter-
natives.—All feasible  alternative waste man-
agement systems shall be initially Identified.
These  alternatives should Include systems
discharging  to receiving  waters,  systems
using land or subsurface disposal techniques,
and  systems employing the reuse  of waste-
water.  In identifying  alternatives, the possi-
bility of staged development  of the system
shall be considered.
  (2) Screening of alternatives.—The iden-
tified  alternatives shall be  systematically
screened to define those capable of meeting
the  applicable Federal,  State,  and  local
criteria.
  (3)   Selection   of   alternatives.—The
screened alternatives shall be initially ana-
lyzed to determine which systems have cost-
effective potential and which should be fully
evaluated according to the cost-effectiveness
analysis  procedures   established  In  these
guidelines.
  (4) Extent of effort.—The extent of effort
and  the level of sophistication used in the
cost-effectiveness analysis should reflect the
size  and Importance of the project.
  f.  Cost-Effective analysis  procedures—(1)
Method of  Analysis.—The  resources costs
shall be evaluated through the use of oppor-
tunity  costs. For those resources that can be
expressed in monetary terms, the Interest
(discount) rate established in section (f) (5)
will  be used. Monetary costs shall  be calcu-
lated in terms of present worth  values or
equivalent annual values over the planning
period  as denned in  section (f)(2). Non-
monetary factors  (e g., social and environ-
mental) shall be accounted for descriptively
In the  analysis in order to determine their
significance and  Impact.
                                            181
-------
  The most cost-effective alternative shall bo
the waste  treatment  management system
determined from the analysis to have  the
lowest present worth and/or equivalent  an-
nual value without overriding adverse non-
monetary costs and to realise at least Identi-
cal minimum benefits In terms of applicable
Federal, state, and  local standards for ef-
fluent  quality, water  quality, water  reuse
and/or land and subsurface disposal.
   (2)  Planning period.—The planning period
for the cost-effectiveness analysis shall be 20
years.
   (3)  Elements  of cost.—The costs  to be
considered shall Include the total values of
the resources attributable to tha waste treat-
ment  management system  or to one of Its
component parts. To determine these  values,
Ml monies necessary for capital construction
costs and  operation and maintenance costs
shall be Identified.
  Capital construction costs used In a cost-
effectiveness analysis shall  Include all con-
tractors' costs of construction Including over-
head and profit; costs of land, relocation, and
right-of-way   and  easement  acquisition;
design engineering, field exploration, and en-
gineering services during construction;  ad-
ministrative  and legal  services  including
costs of bond sales; startup costs such as op-
erator  training;  and Interest during con-
struction. Contingency allowances consistent
with the level of complexity and detail of the
cost estimates shall be Included.
  Annual  costs for  operation and mainte-
nance  (including  routine  replacement  of
equipment  and  equipment parts)  shall be
Included  In the  cost-effectiveness  analysis.
These costs shall be adequate to ensure ef-
fective and dependable operation during the
planning period for the system. Annual costs
shall be divided  between fixed annual costs
and costs which would be dependent  on the
annual quantity of wastewater collected  and
treated.
   (4)  Prices.—The  various  components of
cost shall be calculated on the basis of mar-
ket prices prevailing at the time of  the cost-
effectiveness analysis. Inflation of wages  and
prices shall not be considered In the analysis.
The  implied  assumption is that all prices
Involved  will  tend to  change over time by
approximately the same  percentage. Thus,
the results of the cost effectiveness analysis
will not be affected by changes in the  gen-
eral level of prices.
   Exceptions to the foregoing can  bo made
If their is Justification for expecting  signifi-
cant changes in the relative prices of  certain
items during  the planning period. If such
cases  are Identified, the expected change In
these prices should be made to reflect then-
future relative deviation from the general
price level.
   (5)  Interest (discount) rate.—A  rale of 7
percent per year will be used for  the cost-
effectiveness analysis until the promulgation
of  the Water Resources Council's "Proposed
Principles and Standards for Planning Water
 and Related Land Resources." After promul-
 gation of  the above  regulation,  the  rate
 established for water resource projects shall
be used for the cost-effectiveness analysts.
   (6)  Interest during construction .—In cases
where capital  expenditures can be expected
 to be fairly uniform during the construction
 period, interest during construction may be
 calculated as IXVi PXC where:
I=the  Interest (discount) rate  In  Section
  f(5).
P=the construction period In years.
C = the total capital expenditures.
  In  cases  when expenditures will not  be
uniform,  or when the  construction period
will be greater than three years, Interest dur-
ing construction  shall  be calculated on  a
year-by-year basis.

   (7) Service life.—The service life- of treat-
ment works for a cost-effectiveness  analysis
shall be as follows:
Land  	Permanent
Structures	30-50  yearh
     (Includes  plant  buildings,
    concrete  process  tankage,
    basins, etc.; sewage collec-
    tion  and conveyance pipe-
    lines;  lift  station  struc-
    tures; tunnels; outfalls)
Process equipment	15-30  years
    (includes   major  process
    equipment such as  clartfler
    mechanism, vacuum filters,
    etc.;  steel process  tankage
    and chemical storage facili-
    ties;  electrical  generating
    facilities on standby service
    only).
Auxiliary  equipment	10-15  years
    (Includes Instruments and
    control  facilities;  sewage
    pumps and electric  motors;
    mechanical equipment such
    as compressors, aeration sys-
    tems,  centrifuges,  chlori-
    nators, etc.;  electrical gen-
    erating facilities on regular
    service).
  Other service life periods will be acceptable
when sufficient Justification can be provided.
  Where  a system  or a  component Is for
Interim service and  the anticipated useful
life Is less than  the service life,  the useful
life shall be substituted for the service life of
the facility in the analysis.
  (8)  Salvage value.—Land  for  treatment
works, Including land used as part of the
treatment process or for ultimate  disposal of
residues, shall be assumed to have a salvage
value at the end of the planning period equal
to Its prevailing market  value  at the time of
the analysis.  Right-of-way easements  shall
be  considered to  have a  salvage value not
greater  than the prevailing market value  at
the time of the analysis.
  Structures will  be assumed to  have   a
salvage value If there is a use for such struc-
tures  at the end of the  planning  period. In
this case,  salvage value shall  be estimated
using straightline  depreciation during the
service life of the treatment works.
  For phased additions of process  equipment
and auxiliary equipment, salvage value at the
end of the planning period may be estimated
under the same conditions and on the same
basis as described above for structures.
  When the anticipated useful  life of a facil-
ity  is  less  than 20 years (for analysis of In-
terim faculties), salvage value can  be claimed
for equipment where it can be clearly  dem-
onstrated  that a  specific  market or  reuse
opportunity will exist.

   [FR Doc.73-19104 Filed 9-7-73;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 38, NO.  174—MONDAY,  SEPTEMBER 10, 1973


                                               182
                                                                      04J.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974 625-384/32  1-3
-------