United States Office of Water ' December 1978
Environmental Protection Program Operations (WH-547)
Agency Washington, DC 20460 A/I/1 7*\ /) ~"? ~~J
"Vater
EPA Program Requirements
Memoranda
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program
*»
MCD-02.7
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOTICE TO ALL HOLDERS OF THE EPA
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM MANUAL OF REFERENCES (MCD-02)
Because the material contained in the "Manual of References" is
obsolete, further printing and distribution will cease. However, the
program policy documents incorporated in that manual, and subsequently
updated by the publication of supplemental issuances of new and revised
Program Requirements Memoranda (PRMs), will continue to be made available
to that segment of the public involved in various aspects of the
Construction Grants Program. Hence, holders of the MCD-02 will continue
to receive copies of Program Requirements Memoranda (MCD-02.00) as they
are printed. So that PRM recipients are kept apprised of the completeness
of their policy document library, a full index of PRMs issued will be
included with each printing.
-------
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDA
Table of Contents
MCD 02.1
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 PG 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 DeviationUse 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 Wastewater 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 7/16/74
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 Debarment 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 1/20/75
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
7/25/76
7/26/76
MCD 02.2
PRM 76-3
PRM 76-4
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
-------
MOD 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 RecoveryInterim Guidance 2/17/78
Combined Step 2 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
-------
&55K*? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
° WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN 291978
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
any 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 arid 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 GIGS 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).
-------
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 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.
o Parent project number (i.e., EPA project number for
predecessor project) (TN B2).
o 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.
o 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.
o 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 IIIb
(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
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/Needs 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 RCGfUS. 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 35.915-1(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 (2^ I*** 7* A
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. Chlorination 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 roon(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 Ivgh^s 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
? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 1 3 1978
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
PRM No. 79-2
SUBJECT: Royalties for Use of or for Rights in Patents
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant AdministratorW^&n
for Water Program Operations (WH-546) / ">
' rf>
Frances E. Phillips, Associate General Counsel -^^
Grants, Contracts and General AdministratTao_^A-Y§4.j
To: Regional Administrators
Attn: Water Division Directors
Purpose
This memorandum sets forth Agency policy and procedures concerning
the allowable cost associated with the procurement of the right to use,
or the rights in, a patented product, apparatus or process which is
necessary for the proper performance of a construction grant agreement
or subagreement thereto.
Discussion
Questions have been raised about the allowability of royalties for
the use of or for rights in patents. Royalties are itemized costs or
charges in the nature of patent royalties, license fees, patent or
license amortization costs, or the like. Such royalties are paid to
a patent licensor either by the grantee or by a contractor, who in
turn separately charges the grantee for this actual cost.
This memorandum addresses the payment of royalties during the
construction of the waste treatment works, as distinguished from the
grantee's periodic payment of royalties for the right to operate under
a patent. Periodic payments are operating costs and are not within the
purview of this memorandum. Any part of a license fee, beyond a mere
royalty, which can be attributed to services rendered by the licensor is
also beyond the purview of this memorandum.
-------
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.
-------
SS
\
UNITED STATES I
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
n /AnvV-^X
FROM: Thomas\ G>-kl»mTng, Assistant Administrator
Water and Waote Management (WH-556)
i I I
TO: Regional Administrators (Regions I thru X)
I. PURPOSE
This memorandum consolidates and updates Agency policy and guidance
for evaluation of land treatment alternatives using slow rate, rapid
infiltration, or overland flow processes in the Construction Grants
Program, It provides guidance on the extent and nature of material to
be included in facility plans to ensure that these land treatment alter-
natives have been given thorough evaluation.
II. DISCUSSION
Evaluation of land treatment in facilities planning has been
mandatory under PL 92-500 (the Act) since July 1, 1974. The EPA con-
struction grants regulations as published in the Federal Register
vol. 39, no. 29, February 11, 1974, provided for coverage of land
application techniques in facility planning [35.917-1(d)(5)(iii)].
Three land application (land treatment) techniques were included in the
description of alternative techniques for best practicable treatment
published in October 1975. Many other technical information bulletins,
PGM's, and PRM's have been issued as guidance for the evaluation of land
treatment alternatives in the Construction Grants Program.
This approach was used to provide the latest information available
to the Regional Offices with a minimum of delay. While the objective of
timely distribution of technical information and guidance has been
achieved, this piecemeal distribution has also resulted in some disparities
in the interpretation and implementation of policy.
-------
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 will
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 preappl ication 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 ^;he 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. Preapplication 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 shdtild 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
UNIT£D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 3 1977
THE ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: EPA Policy on Lan
Wastewater
FROM: The Administr
TO: Assistant Administratork 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 municipal 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
organics such as food processing. Adoption of suitable in-plant pretreatnent
for the ~enoval of excessive metals and toxic substances would expand
f>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 of}
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 used in a manner that
may arbitrarily block land treatment projects. Whenever States insist
u_por placing unnecessarily stringent preapplica tio_n treatment require-
ments upon land treatment, such as requiring EPA secondary effluent
quality in all cases prfor to application on the land, the unnecessary
wastewater treatment facilit^es^will not be funded by EPA. 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 preappli-
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
3 'The implementation of more recent mandates from the Safe Drinking
Viatel Act (P.L. 93-532), the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469),
and She Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580)
must1be 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
1egislation.
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
*\J
UJ
___j
ca
<
i
oo
UJ
00
00
Li_l
o
c_
1
^y*
U-i
-2Z
H-
<
UJ
)"""
i
o
l .
OO
:E5
1
1
^
4>
i)
(J
o
0.
L.
4)
M
C3
cj
i^»
OJ
'O
0
!_
CL
aj
"a
<-*
3
ul
.2
trt
-ra
*3
CJ
i
o
"*3
T3
O
c
0
-u
^1
u
l-w
cr»
c
^
o.
QJ
O
13
H- r*^.
^ CO
3
wi O
3
t^l CO
s
u
OJ O
* o o
-i '-/ -
c ^
-*- o
~ .13
iy^ vl T
i-
O
_
<+} O
-^ I-J
~ -o o
_ w- *j
L.
.i. 3 O
CJ
u
13
3
t/> O
O
«r
^- O >,
CM i.
O -a
*-» O =
Cg Q_
O
CD
CSJ LT) >,
OJ '_
o ^
*j O =
w
" 3_
r3
flt
a u en
Of =
O w 4J
w 0 i>
>-O - sJ
' CM o wn
o
^^
a
W
c
u
c:
-3
4J
t/i
C
O
«3
-tJ
=
-o
;j
i^
"3
>
o
^J
^n
o
*j
o
,._
o
o
UJ
c
1*.
o
3
T3
VI
01
0
1/1
^
3
C
0
w
O
';
CJ
ii-
o
w
"3
Ck
c
0
>
o
o
c
o
w
«3
u
a.
yi
d
o
S"
->
a»
^
Q
5
^
H
O
O -3
a
-^ '->
2 a.
c
o
'""'
a.
O
-a
SJ
u.
cr
CJ
21
-3
u
GT
ai
o
LJ
u '_ <-j
*~ ^z 3
'- -> O O -"
Cl C CL S. ^Z
"
2-3 Q. -J -^
U C CJ
~ c 5 =
3 ^ U =
^i en -j
o
1 -y
' o
k_ u. -a
2-2
-------
ATTACHMENT C
CM
1
CM
LU
1
,M
tn
11
il
a.
o
£ 03
*- o
-
U. CM
41
*
o
ti
s_
01
u
L
"3
4.7
U
U O~
*!._,_
O
w co 2
'J C? r^
*-" O
S v» l>
1
' -a -3
.3 J= 1)
(J «-» -t-*
"3
O vi
Oi
O 3
f\j O
TJ C
c c a
a -a c
*-* c
T3 O
3 "S o S
J, >
4-J * >s
u aj
^ "S
u u
G> CJ
o 1
3.1 e:
>,
t^
^
"S
41
~
L.
a
a.
r
a
to
n«
u
^*
u
+J
o
z
*3
^J
w
u
u
-t-l
o
z
rtj
yl '13 (O
Ul 4-1 C
~-^ 0 1- (U
U "3 -3
J-l <*3 L.
u- i) >
i) -a o
0 '- = '~
^
S
c
^=
^*
a o
ISI C U
^>
**~
§2 |
" O i
3 c
T« **
VI
VI C
a o .
0.1- i.
1*3 rr~
fj i_ 4-1
O ""^ U
=: o 5
-a -3
ij C
3 <3
4) i.
C 0)
C -J C
aj "3 o
v- s Z
"3 -^
QJ ^
ci o a.
«1 o *
1- U
O i. 1)
4J a u
UO <*. Q.
c
o
U -J
*- u
4-1 >
-a '-
S 4J
r- vi
» a
U I-
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 3). 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
.T.ethod
AWT-4
Irrigation
Cost component
AWT-4
Existing activated
sludqe adjustment
Total
Irrigation system
Aerated lagoon
adjustment
Land cost
Subtotal
Amount available
for land = (28.0-13.0)
Total area, acres
Cost
C/1,000 gal. Source
44.
-(16.
28.
24.
-(4.
-IS.
13.
15.
4 ,300
3
0)
0
0
3)
7)
0
0
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Table
Table
1
1
1
1
7
7
Allowable cost/acre
20 mqd (15»/1,000 gal.MlO3)
(0.0154)(4,300 acres)
4,500
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 = (28.0 - 18.0)
Allowable distance, miles
Cost
C/1,000 gal
28
24
-(4
-u
18
10
33
.0
.0
-3)
.7)
.0
.0
Source
Figure
Figure
Figure
Table
Table
1
1
1
7
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.
-------
ATT'iCIIflEilT F
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1976
PART IV:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
ALTERNATIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES FOR BEST
PRACTICABLE WASTE
TREATMENT
Supplement
-------
6190
NOTICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL 482-6]
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 FR 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 -
for 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 in the EPA
Manual for Evaluating Drinking Water
Supplies were required hi 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 H and Appendix D of Alterna-
tive Waste Management Techniques for
Best Practicable Waste Treatment shall
read as follows.
Dated: February 4,1976.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator-
CHAPTER H
CBITEBIA FOB BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE
TREATMENT
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 appli-
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 TiiniTrmm 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, wUl 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:
Cage 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 1).
(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. II: 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 rH: 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, H. and m 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 shall 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 FEDERAL REGISTER on Decem-
ber 24, 1975. In accordance with the criteria
for best practicable waste treatment, 40 CFR
141 should .be consulted in Its entirety when
applying the standards contained therein to
wastewater treatment systems employing
land appplicatlon techniques and land uti-
lization practices.
Maximum contaminant levels for Inot-
ganiff chemicals. The following are the max-
imum levels of Inorganic chemicals other
than fluoride:
Level
(milligrams
Contaminant: per liter)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.
Cadmium 0. 010
Chromium 0.05'
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Nitrate (aaN) 10.
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
The maximum contaminant levels for
fluoride are:
Temperature
degrees
Fahrenheit «
53.8 to 58.3
58.4 to 63.8
63.9 to 70.6
70.7 to 79.2.'.
79.3 to 90.5
Degrees Celsius
12 apd below ..
... 12.1 to 14.6
... 14.7tol7.a
... 17.7 to 21,4
21.5 to 28.2
...-28.3 to 32.5
Level
(milligrams
-per liter)
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
average of the mftriTmiTn dally air tem-
perature.
Maximum contaminant levels for organic
chemicals. The following are the maximum
contaminant levels for organic chemicals:
Level
(milHorom
(a) Chlorinated hydrocarbons: per liter)
Endrln (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-
6,7 - epoxy - l,4,4a,S,6,7,8,8a-oc-
tahydro-I,4-endo,endo - 5,8-dl-
methano naphthalene) 0.0002
Undane (1,2,3,4,5,6 - Hexachloro-
cycloh'exane, gamma Isomer) 0. 004
Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trlchloro-g,
2-bls [p-methoxyphenyl] eth-
ane) 0.1
Toxaphene (CltH,0Cl, - Technical
.chlorinated camphene, 67 to 69
percent chlorine.) 0.006
(b) Chlorophenoxys:
2,4-D (2,4-Dlchlorophenoxyacetlc
acid) 0.1
2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trlchloro-
phenoxyproplonic acid) 0.01
FEDERAb REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 29WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 197*
-------
NOTICES
6191
Maximum microbiological contaminant
levels. The maximum contaminant levels for
conform bacteria, applicable to community
water systems" and non-community water
systems, are as follows:
(a) When the membrane niter technique
pursuant to I 141.21 (a) is used, the number
of conform bacteria shall not exceed any of
the following :
(1) One per 100 milliliters as the arith-
metic mean of all samples examined per
month pursuant to § 141.21 (b) or (c);
(2) Pour per 100 milliliters In more than
one sample when less than 20 are examined
per month; or
(3) Four per 100 milliliters 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 milliliter standard portions
pursuant to § 141.21 (a) are used, collform
bacteria shall not be present in any of the
following:
(1) More than 10 percent of the portions in
any month pursuant to § 141.21 (b) or (c);
(ii) Three or more portions in more than
one sample when less than 20 samples are
examined per month; or
(ill) Three or more portions in more than
Sve percent of the samples when 20 or more
samples are examined per month,
(2) When the fermentation tube method
and 100 mllllliter 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);
(ii) 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 flve or more samples
are examined per month.
(c) For community or non-comnumlty
systems that are required to sample at a rate
of less than 4 per month, compliance with
Paragraphs (a), (b) (l),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.
[FB Doc.75-3932 Filed 2-10-^6;S:4i> am]
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 41, NO. 29WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1976
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 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 Ogjfc* f */S
for Water Program Operations (WH 546) p
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. 209FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1978
[84 0-01-M] 50276
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS FOR PLANN'NG
WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES
Chonge in Dttcount Rote
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),
arid 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 tune
basis.
The Department of the Treasury on
October 19, 1978 informed the Water
Resources ConncO pursuant to chap-
ter RT, D., it; that the interest rate
would be 7% percent based upon the
formula set forth in chapter IV, D.,
(a-): "* * * the average yield during the
preceding Fiscal Year OP. 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 '" ' * r,hat 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
6% percent.
Dated: October 24, 1978.
LEO M. EISEL,
Director.
[FR Doc 78-30408 Piled 10-26-78; 8.45 anil
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 210MONDAY, OCTOBER 33, 1978
[1505-01-M] 50537
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS FOR PLANNING
WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES
OKI no* in Discount Rote
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 "* * " 7"/s percent" should
have read "* " 6V8 percent * " "".
-------
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 212(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.
-------
Po1i cy:
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 contractor may not appeal to EPA.
III. Sharing Provisions
Construction Cost Sharing
Upon acceptance of a CICP, the contractor will share the net capital
savings pursuant to this contract based on the formula below. Computation
for the net savings is to be based on the following formula:
Net 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
-------
1/fal
17J717
-------
\
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
% ,tp
-------
-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 §35.915(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 § 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 lew 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.
-------
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 §35.915(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 Hater 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 GICS. 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 11 IB. .(Sewer System
Replacement or Major Rehabilitation), IVA (New Collector?
and Appurtenances), IVB (New Interceptors and Appurtenances),
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 and 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
-------
MCD-02.7
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Postage and Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA 335
c/o GSA
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver CO 80225
Fou
Boo
12645160QQ03 001
-fFA- WWN- AH ---------
DEE CRAWFORD LIBRARY
l2$± iCM_s
DALLAS TX
-§u»-
------- |