EPA 600/5-74-015
July 1974
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
Use of Environmental Analyses on
Wastewater Facilities by
Local Government
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
1ESSMC& HP01TIN& - SERIES
reports of the Office of lesearch and Developsent »
Jfrotectlcm Igency, 'have keen grouped into five series.- • these 'five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development aad "'appli-
of esvirotraental tedmelogy „ Elimination of traditional grouping
was 'consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximost inter-
face is related fields, 'She five series are:
•1. BavirtKHfliental Health Effects Research
2*- Bovironaental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Besearch
4. £trvirazaaexital Monitoring
S* SocioeconoEic Environmental Studies
Tfeia . report feas been assigned to the SOCIOECOBCMIC EHVIEOWEMM, S'TBDIES
series. This series includes research on environmental saoagenjent ,
«co»omic analysis, ecolo-gial impacts, <:onq>reheiffisive planaitig and fore- .
casrtiag aad analysis isetfcodologies , Included are tools for -determining
varying impacts of alternative policies , analyses of enviromoental 'plan-
aiag techniqties at the regional, state and local levels,' -aad approaches'
to measuring -eaviroTaKntal ijualitry perceptions, as well as analysis of
ecols^gical Bzid'eccmcnBic impacts of environmental protection measures.
:S«3s topics as ra-ban form, industrial isix, growth policies., control and
ipr gani JtatdLoaal structure are disciissed is tenas of optimal • envirotaaetstal
perfonuatce." These ifflterdificiplijaary studies and systess. analyses are
presented in fonas varyiag froa quantitative relational- analyses to; maiiage-
went-.and isolicf-orieated reports.
MOTICE
this report lias 'bees revi£i»ea Vf the Office of Besearch and
;BP^» &&A '^pfna3ve«3 for pt&licatiem. Approval does not signify that the.
•-.contents necessarily reflect the views aad policies of ;.tiieMn,viroB»efttal
•?roteetioK Ageucy, mor ioes iseatism of trade aaaes or .commercial products
'•.constitute eadorseaent or recoBHaemlation for use.
-------
EPA-600/5-74-015
July 1974
USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES ON WASTEWATER
FACILITIES BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
By
0. C. Fensterstock
D. M. Speaker
Contract No. 68-01-1898
Program Element No. 1HA095
Reap/Task 21 ART-06
Project Officer
D. Robert Scherer
Washington Environmental Research Center
Washington, D. C.
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 • Price $2.70
-------
FOREWORD
The widespread use of environmental impact analysis as a means of achiev-
ing Federal agency decision-making responsive to environmental concerns
was initiated by the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. The Act required that Federal agencies prepare statements assessing
the environmental impact of their major actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment. In subsequent years, Federal agen-
cies developed procedures for the preparation of environmental impact
statements, often requiring similar analyses and statements from local
governments and the private sector as a requirement for the award of
Federal permits or grants. In addition, some states established govern-
mental impact statement requirements. Recent revisions of guidelines
for the preparation of Federal impact statements, issued by the Council
on Environmental Quality, have defined clear requirements for impact state-
ments issued by Federal agencies. However, such uniformity of procedure
and approach has not been widely extended below the Federal level through
either specific Federal agency requirements or individual state require-
ments. Further, while the guidelines may specify what is desired in Fed-
eral impact statements, technical approaches to meeting these objectives
may not always be available and universally acceptable.
As a part of its series of Socioeconomic Environmental Studies, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, is conducting
research whose objectives are to:
. Improve the technical quality of environmental impact
analyses in areas of Agency responsibility;
. Improve the ability of the Agency to provide substantive
technical review of environmental impact statements pre-
pared by other agencies; and
. Improve the effectiveness of the use of environmental
impact analyses in influencing decision-making at all
governmental levels.
This publication is the first of a two-part series of reports relating
to the use of environmental impact analyses by local government in their
decision-making process. The study reviews four cases in which environ-
mental analyses were prepared on wastewater treatment facilities proposed
for EPA funding. Case study examples were selected to ensure representa-
tion of different types of both jurisdictional patterns and locational
settings, and the availability of pertinent environmental analyses. The
-------
study process reviewed the entire flow of project decision-making, in-
cluding organizational structures, program initiation, lay public par-
ticipation, state role, and EPA regional office processes.
The study analysis identified and detected several types of problems,
both substantive and procedural. These problems were attributed to
various root causes, and recommendations developed were specifically
addressed to these causes.
The environmental analyses, whether prepared by the applicant or EPA,
were based on interim, final or revised guidelines for implementation
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, promulgated by the
Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection
Agency during the period of 1970 through 1972. The second report of
this project, will provide a comparative analysis of environmental
analyses (assessments, impact statements, negative declarations, ap-
praisals, etc.) prepared by either the applicant or EPA, and based
on CEQ Guidelines for the Preparations of Environmental Impact State-
ments, dated August 4, 1973 and EPA Interim Guidelines for the PrepaFa-
tion of Environmental Impact Statements, dated January 17, 1973: a
detailed review of state agency input into the decision-making pro-
cess: and a review of the means by which local governments keep the
lay public informed of actions and/or programs having a significant
environmental impact.
This series of studies is being conducted by the Applied Research
Division of Teknekron, Inc., 1019 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
20036, under the direction of Jack C. Fensterstock and David M. Speaker.
The work was supported by the Ecological Impact Analysis Staff, Wash-
ington Environmental Research Center,
Edwin B. Royce, Director
Ecological Impact Analysis Staff
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Environmental analyses (assessments, environmental impact statements,
negative declarations, appraisals, etc.) on wastewater treatment fa-
cilities reflecting Council of Environmental Quality and Environmental
Protection Agency guidelines in force during the period of 1970 through
1972, were reviewed and evaluated. Case studies selected ensured repre-
sentation of different types of both jurisdictional patterns and loca-
tional settings. The study process reviewed decision-making flows, or-
ganizational structures, public and state government roles, and EPA re-
gional office review processes. The general conclusions reached, showed
that environmental considerations played a relatively minor role in the
decision-making processes.
The analysis detected both substantive and procedural problems. The
problems include: inadequate environmental orientation of staffs; ex-
clusion of public input; intra-organizational conflicts; and inadequate
Federal guidelines.
Recommendations which would be appropriate for local, state and Federal
implementation include: Federal funding to state and local agencies
for training staffs; more precise Federal guidelines; legislative changes;
and suggestions to improve public participation in the entire decision-
making process.
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD ii
ABSTRACT iv
CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 5
IV STUDY FINDINGS 9
Principal Procedural Problem Areas 9
Substanti ve Probl em Areas 14
Miscellaneous Problem Areas 16
Recommendations 18
V APPENDICES - Case Study Examples 25
Appendix A - Jacksonville, Florida 26
Hot Springs, Arkansas 30
Suffolk County, New York, Southwest
Sewer District 43
Nassau County, New York, Sewer District
No. 3 53
East Bay Municipal Utility District,
California 57
Appendix B - Chronology of Assessment Guidelines... 67
Appendix C - Evaluation of Environmental Analyses.. 70
Appendix D - Environmental Assessments of FWQA
Actions - COM 3200.1, Oct.17,1970.. 90
Appendix E - EPA Grant Regulations - June 9, 1972.. 133
Revised Regulations - Feb. 23, 1973... H9
Appendix F - Interim Guidelines, January 17, 1973.. 157
Appendix G - Water Pollution Control, Feb.11, 1974. 175
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Page
1. Preparation and Circulation of Environmental
Analyses 6
2. Summary Evaluation of Environmental Analyses 17
3. Grant Application Process - Jacksonville, Florida... 27
4. Grant Application Process - Hot Springs, Arkansas... 39
5. Review Procedures for A-95: N.Y. Office of Planning. 46
6. Review Procedures for Grant Applications - New York
Department of Environmental Conservation 49
7. Review Procedures for Grant Applications - New York
Office of Environmental Analysis 50
8. Review Procedures for Grant Applications - Suffolk
County Southwest Sewer District 51
9. Review Procedures for Grant Applications - Nassau
County Sewer District No. 3 55
10. Review Procedures for Grant Applications - East Bay
Municipal Utility District, Special District One 65
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation received from the many EPA,
State and local officials who provided information during the performance
of the study. Specific thanks are extended to the following for their
help:
Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Edwin Royce, Washington Environmental Research Center
D. Robert Scherer, Washington Environmental Research Center
Peter Cook, Office of Federal Activities
Staffs of Regional Offices II, IV, VI, IX
Local Government Officials associated with
Nassau-Suffolk Counties, New York
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Jacksonville, Florida
East Bay Municipal Utility District, California
-------
I CONCLUSIONS
This report, which presents the first phase of a two part program,
is based on the analysis of the wastewater treatment facility grant
application process as conducted at four case example study sites:
Jacksonville, Florida; Hot Springs, Arkansas; Nassau-Suffolk Counties,
New York; and East Bay Municipal Utility District, California. In the
course of the analysis, various problem areas were identified. These
concerned such questions as the role of enviornmental considerations
in decision-making, the opportunity for public participation in the
planning process and the organization and content of official documents
presenting the prospective environmental implications of the proposed
wastewater treatment projects. Most of the specific problems encoun-
tered appeared as symptoms of the following root causes:
. Inadequacy of local agency staff resources and/or
environmental orientation.
. Exclusion by the grant initiating agency of infor-
mation or opinions (from sources external to the
agency) from planning and decision-making processes.
. Subordination of environmental concerns to other
considerations (such as technical and economic)
in decision-making.
. Nonuniformity of EPA regional office organization
as this affects prioritization of responsibilities.
. Inadequacy of guidance materials used for the prep-
aration of environmental documents relating to pro-
posed projects. (This references Guidelines issued
by FWQA and EPA which were in effect when these pro-
jects were being planned.)
. Failure of local jurisdictions to enact legislation pro-
viding both authorization and resource support for environ-
mental reviews and assessments of proposed wastewater treat-
ment projects for which grant funding is sought.
. Delayed timing of public participation in the planning pro-
cess until after decisions have been made with the results
that potentially viable alternatives to the proposed project
are no longer open for public consideration.
-------
II RECOMMENDATIONS
The summary recommendations presented below address the broad problem
areas previously identified. (Both the problems and the recommendations
are treated in more detail later in this report. See page 18.
. The institution of EPA grant programs, appropriate
capital budgeting procedures and the use of local
available qualified personnel to permit (a) augmen-
tation of local agency staffs and (b) establishment
of environmental training programs for current staff
members.
. Modification of EPA regulations (relating to the
wastewater treatment facility grant application
process) to require that complete records of public
hearings and documented evidence of adequate circu-
lation of alternative facility designs to interested
local agencies accompany the grant application.
. The requirement that an evaluation of the environ-
mental implications of facility design alternatives
be completed and presented at a public meeting prior
to selection of final design by local political entities.
. Establishment within EPA regional offices (where
appropriate) of administrative separation between
the responsibility for grant fund disbursement and
environmental evaluation (including environmental
impact statement preparation) of proposed wastewater
treatment facilities.
. Preparation by EPA of guidelines for assistance to
local agencies in the development of environmental
assessments of proposed wastewater treatment facilities.
-------
Ill INTRODUCTION
This project, entitled "Use of Environmental Analyses of Wastewater Fa-
cilities by Local Governments" was conducted in response to EPA's con-
cern as to whether environmental considerations were subordinated to a
minor role by local governments in their wastewater treatment facility
planning. Local jurisdictional authorities, such as municipal, special
purpose districts, county and regional agencies may formally apply to
EPA for grant funds to be used in support of wastewater treatment plants
or directly associated facilities. As part of the grant application pro-
cess, the applicant is required to prepare an "environmental assessment"
which discusses (among other topics) the prospective environmental impact
of the proposed facility as well as that of alternative designs (including
alternative siting) which were considered during the decision-making pro-
cess. EPA regulations also require that the grant applicant hold public
meetings for open discussion of the proposed project and the environmental
assessment.
Grant application documents which might include engineering feasibility
reports, comments for private and public agencies and the assessment are
initially reviewed by the water pollution control or equivalent agency of
the state within which the proposed facility is to be constructed. The
state agency is responsible for determining that the project is entitled
to priority (in accordance with a project priority list previously sub-
mitted to EPA Regional Administrator) and that the grant application is
complete. If, following state review, the documents are found satisfac-
tory, they are transmitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The
regional office must determine whether the prospective environmental
effects of the construction and operation of the facility are likely to
be "significant", thus requiring the preparation and issuance of an "En-
vironmental Impact Statement" (EIS) under the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. If these are considered insufficient to
warrant an EIS, the regional office must prepare an "Environmental Ap-
praisal" and issue a "Negative Declaration" to the effect that this pro-
ject will not significantly affect the quality of the environment.
Figure 1 is a flowchart which presents sequential steps through which en-
vironmental analyses*are generally prepared and circulated. It should be
As used in this report the term "environmental analyses" includes all
environmentally related documents, i.e., environmental assessments,
environmental impact statements, environmental appraisals and negative
declarations.
-------
FIGURE 1. PREPARATION AND CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
Applicant's - "" *
Environmental ^ A-95 Review
Assessment
^
\
State Agency EPA Regional
Environmental nffirp yRpvipw
Keview
.J^L. 1
EIS Not Required EIS Required
\
1
Prepare Environmental
Appraisal and
Negative Declaration
I
Receive and Evaluate
Review Comments
1
X
j Prepare Preliminary
1 Draft EIS |
|
Receive and Evaluate
In-House Review Comments
1
Revise Draft EIS
Reevaluate Decision
* Federal Agencies
EPA (Washington Office1
State and Local
Public/Private
** CEQ
Commenting Agencies
45 days
minimum and
possible 15
day extension
I
Submit Draft EIS for
External Review*
3r
Receive and Evaluate
Review Comments
Prepare Final EIS
L
\ >
Administrative
On Applicant's
Action
Proposal •
^
Distribute
EIS
(
i
Final
**
30 days
minimum
•
90 da,
(ninim
-------
noted that the environmental assessment (which is prepared by the appli-
cant) is of particular importance because it is a major source of infor-
mation for the EPA regional office responsible for project review.
Specific objectives of this study were: (1) an appraisal of specific waste-
water program environmental analyses in terms of adequacy and other signi-
ficant criteria, and (2) the examination of manner and degree to which
impact analysis is actually utilized in the decision-making process, the
relations of such considerations to political expediency, public and in-
stitutional constraints and the way in which the effectiveness of these
analyses have been influenced by procedural factors, e.g., timing, mode
of submission, etc. The study itself consisted of two main parts. The
first of these involved on-site visits to four case example areas within
which wastewater treatment facility grant applications had been generated.
These areas were selected on the basis of their representativeness of ju-
risdictional types (single and multi-jurisdictional) and settings (urban
and rural/urban) and on the availability of environmental analyses per-
taining to local projects. The study sites were:
. Jacksonville, Florida
. Hot Springs, Arkansas
. Nassau-Suffolk Counties, New York
. East Bay Municipal Utility District, California
The second part of the study was the evaluation of the environmental
analyses pertaining to the case example projects.
In the course of the project, various problem areas were identified.
Some of these were procedural in nature and, on the whole, reflected
inadequate representation of environmental concerns as effective in-
fluential factors in the decision-making process. Some problem areas,
relating to environmental analyses, were essentially substantive in
that they stemmed from failures to address or inadequate treatments
of various topical areas which properly should be considered. In
general, such inadequacies were more common in assessments than in
environmental impact statements.
It should be understood from the outset that the environmental assess-
ments studied were issued at different periods during which different
Federal guidelines for the preparation of these documents were in effect.
These guidelines, which are briefly described in Appendix B of this re-
port, are essentially similar in principle. However, recent versions
provide far more detailed guidance to the applicant than early issuances .
Evaluation of the environment assessments accordingly took into account
the particular guideline which was to be followed at the time a given
assessment was prepared.
-------
IV STUDY FINDINGS
During the course of the study it became apparent that there were many
problems and constraints relating to the wastewater treatment planning
process, to decision-making procedures from the local community through
the state and EPA regional office and to environmental analysis organi-
zation and content. Problems falling into the first two categories
which are specific to individual cases are identified in Appendix A.
Problems associated with environmental analyses and those which appear
to be commonly encountered among the cases studied are presented below.
(Note that comments on specific analyses are presented in Appendix C.)
In discussing problem areas which seem to be pervasive, it is convenient
to categorize them according to whether they are essentially procedural
or substantive. Certain problem areas which do not clearly fall into
either category are classified as miscellaneous. These categories are
defined as follows:
Procedural: Problems which relate to the procedural aspects
of the grant application and decision-making pro-
cesses.
Substantive: Problems which relate to scope, content and
structure of environmental analyses.
Miscellaneous: Problems in this category do not clearly
relate to either of the above but rather pro-
cedural situations in which a constraint may be
inadequacy of financial or staff resource.
PRINCIPAL PROCEDURAL PROBLEM AREAS
The procedural problem areas discussed below do not constitute an ex-
haustive list of all that were identified, but do include those consid-
ered important in terms of their impact on the overall decision-making
process. It is important to recognize that the administrative quality
of grant application processing by the various agencies involved varies
from one regional area to another. It should not be assumed that each
problem cited was encountered during each of the four case examples.
However, the problem areas that are discussed were found to be suffi-
ciently prevalent to suggest the need for consideration of specific pro-
cedural changes which broaden the base of opinion and technical input
on which decisions are based. Such recommendations appear below.
Identification of Problem Areas
a. Inadequacy of Departments of Public Works with respect to compe-
tence in the evaluation of local environmental concerns for
-------
for assessment preparation.
Public Works professional personnel are generally oriented toward
design, construction maintenance and facility operation, and are
rarely trained in environmental engineering. The staff depends
on the consulting engineering firm for support in assessment prep-
aration. However, this obviously raises the possibility of a con-
flict of interest because the consultant* may tend to favor his
preferred design alternative. Frequently environmental expertise
may exist in another agency or department of local government.
However, because of either unawareness that such a resource is
available or unwillingness to use it, a Public Works Department
may often not take advantage of the expertise on hand. Sometimes,
a lack of coordination between the Public Works Department (which
is primarily concerned with program implementation) and other agen-
cies or departments may arise from differences of objective. (See
paragraph c below for other comments on interdepartmental coordin-
ation. )
b. Public participation in initial planning stages.
Rarely does the pubic have an opportunity for effective partici-
pation in the decision-making process at a point at which the
options (alternative designs or approaches) are still open. Usu-
ally the Department of Public Works'(or its equivalent) proposal
addresses the preferred alternative as the chosen project. The
other alternatives are often presented in a manner which serves
to justify the selection already made. The public does not have
the opportunity to gain, at least at a sufficiently early date,
a real understanding of the technically feasible alternatives,
their prospective economic costs or their environmental implica-
tions. The specific project is usually a "line item" in the budget
which is presented to the public during the budget hearings.
c. Lack of municipal and local interdepartmental coordination.
i
It has already been noted that the project proposal originates
through collaborative efforts of the Public Works Department and
the consulting engineer. The project plan is often circulated to
In addition to this the qualifications of the consulting engineer with
respect to environmental disciplines and his knowledge of EPA's regu-
latory requirements generally tend to be somewhat weak and this is re-
flected in the quality of assessments which he prepares.
10
-------
ther internal and local agencies for comment but this is usually
after the basic technical decisions have already been made. The
effect of comments of informational inputs from local receiving
agencies is frequently minimal and usually does not alter basic
project decisions. Therefore, the proposal which eventually
reaches the regional EPA office may not truly represent the col-
lective views of the local community. To an even greater degree
the same is true of environmental assessments in that local de-
partments or public and/or private agencies may not even have
the opportunity to review the document prior to its transmittal
from the locality to the state and EPA.
d. Timing of environmental studies and assessment preparation.
In principle, a thorough study of the prospective environmental
impacts of the feasible alternatives and the preparation of an
environmental assessment which reflects these findings should be
prepared prior to final selection of the proposed project plan.
As a general rule, however, local governments often subordinate
environmental considerations to cost and design factors. Because
of EPA requirements, an assessment is prepared (usually by the
consulting engineer) but this document is frequently little more
than an afterthought and is designed to support a design conclu-
sion already reached, and is a technically (engineering) oriented,
single action analysis. Ignoring, for the most part, cumulative
impacts of ancillary actions and secondary* environmental impacts.
The analysis addresses itself almost solely the primary impacts
of the action.
e. Legislative review.
Project review by the local legislative body usually occurs after
the project documents (application, assessment, etc.) have passed
For the purposes of this study, the distinction between primary and
secondary environmental impacts is as follows: primary impacts are
those that result directly from construction, operation, maintenance
or use of the facility being evaluated; and secondary impacts are
those which affect the social, cultural, and economic lifestyles of
the community or region.
11
-------
through the local executive branch of government and constitutes
the final community action prior to state and EPA review. There
are three general problem areas which are characteristically as-
sociated with the legislative review procedure. First, the legis-
lature usually assumes that the executive branch (i.e., mayor's
or city manager's office) has fully complied with all EPA and
state regulatory and statutory requirements and that all of the
documents submitted to it have been correctly prepared and are
consistent with EPA's stipulated procedure. Second, the legis-
lature usually does not have the technical capability to review
the project documents. Third, the legislature is usually more
concerned with economic considerations than with short- or long-
term environmental implications or impacts which have not been
adequately identified in the assessment or by the public works
department.
f. Public hearings
As pointed out earlier, the public rarely has an opportunity to
participate early in the actual planning process. However, pub-
lic hearings are virtually always held after the engineering re-
port and assessment have been submitted to the legislature by
the Public Works (or equivalent) Department. The actual timing
of the hearing with respect to other stages of the application
process varies with the locality, but in many cases the public
hearing is held on a decision already made. Further, it is not
infrequent for the hearing to be conducted in a manner which
discourages effective public participation. For example, meetings
may be held in the middle of the afternoon during the work week
or in other than the prospective area to be impacted. In ad-
dition, project plans and assessments are often not easily obtain-
able, by the lay public or interested agencies,
g. Inadequacy of A-95 review process*.
In some cases the environmental assessment is not sent to the
The A-95 review process (so-called because it is detailed in Circular A-95
issued by the Office of Management and Budget) is a procedure through which
applicants (who may be governmental or private entities) for assistance un-
der various designated Federal programs notify state and regional clearing-
houses" of their intent to apply and also submit a description of the pro-
posed project. Regional clearinghouses are designated by the state for
specific areas and are often the regional planning agencies. Their
12
-------
A-95 clearinghouse. The transmitted notification may merely
identify the request for the grant in terms of the nature of
project the applicant and the amount of funding requested. The
clearinghouse itself performs no analysis of the project docu-
ments but merely forwards these to local area reviewing agencies.
When the comments are received from the agencies by the clearing-
house, they are not usually evaluated due to lack of staff re-
sources. Unfavorable comments may never be transmitted to EPA,
particularly if the state planning agency favors the project.
h. State assessment review.
In most instances the state water pollution control (or equiva-
lent) agency which is responsible for wastewater treatment fa-
cility grant application review, does not critically evaluate
the environmental assessments submitted to it. These assessments
are merely passed on to the EPA regional office without substan-
tive comment.
1. EPA regional offices' processes.
Because of the high level of autonomy afforded to the EPA re-
gional offices without specific organizational guidelines,
there is a considerable degree of variation in procedures and
methods from region to region. In particular, responsibility
for assessment review is handled by different organizational
elements in different regional offices. In addition, the guid-
ance provided for preparation of environmental assessments is,
in some cases, only that which appears in regulations issued by
EPA Headquarters and, in others, consists of documents prepared
by regional office personnel. In general, the disbursement of
construction grant funds receives a higher priority than environ-
mental impact statement preparation. The probability of EIS
preparation is usually responsive to such factors as the level
of public opposition, the proposed project site and the amount
A-95 related functions include both their own reviews of submitted
project plans and the distribution of these plans to state and local
agencies for their comments. A key objective of the A-95 process is
the coordination of Federally supported planning and development ac-
tivities within the area in which these activities occur. (FWQA issu-
ance COM 3200.1 contains instructions requiring complete and detailed
state review of environmental impact before EPA action. See Appendix D.)
-------
of available information relating to the program and its environ-
mental implications. There are, however, no general criteria
uniformly applied in practice for setting EIS preparation prior-
ities, although in theory, at least, the "significance" of pro-
spective environmental impacts of proposed projects could be an
appropriate basis for establishing such priorities. Further, in
reviewing a proposed project and its environmental assessment,
the regional offices will frequently accept the design selected
by the applicant. However, it has been suggested (in one instance)
that the regional office would accept any alternative design if it
were as fully supported as the selection proposed by the applicant.
It is noted that FWQA, COM 3200.1 did contain substantive guidelines
for review procedures and that regional offices were required to
comply with them.
j. Post grant monitoring
Grant awards often contain special conditions that have to be
complied with during the construction and/or post construction
periods. These conditions may call upon the locality to under-
take certain studies, adopt local ordinances or fulfill report-
ing requirements pertaining to water quality (few, if any special
conditions reflect impairment in environmental quality). Fre-
quently the post grant monitoring and control conducted by EPA
(and sometimes by the state agency) to assure compliance with
grant conditions is weak and perfunctory. (Note that few, if
any, grant conditions concern environmental impacts of the fa-
cility; they usually relate to engineering or operational con-
siderations. )
SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM AREAS
The evaluations of the environmental analyses (see Appendix C) were
based wholly on the content of the documents and did not reflect addi-
tional information obtained during site visits. This was deliberate
in order to determine the degree to which the analyses could serve as
independent presentations. It was assumed that all facts and state-
ments were precisely factual even though it was subsequently determined
that some of the impressions presented in the text were misleading.
* Note also that the environmental analysis received by the contractor from
the regional offices did not necessarily contain all of the documents (en-
gineering reports, maps, etc.) which may have been submitted by the appli-
cant for state and regional office review.
14
-------
The evaluations included in Appendix C are summarized on page 17, Fig. 2
in the form of a matrix based on key substantive elements:
Pre-existing conditions:
Nature of project:
Environmental Effects:
Construction vs.
Operation
Natural environment:
Socio-economic:
Quantification:
Alternatives:
Technical feasibility:
Economic costs:
Environmental costs:
Explicit NEPA
Considerations:
Public Participation:
The set of conditions of water quality
and associated pollution which make the
project a necessary priority.
Type of facility; new or replacement;
proposed site.
Effects of construction activity differ-
entiated from on line operation.
Impact on ecology and media and other
natural resources.
Impact on people, institutions, aesthe-
tics, and secondary impacts.
Assignment of magnitudes to individual
prospective impacts.
Presentation of engineering practicability
Estimate of costs of construction and
operation.
Assessment of major adverse environmental
impacts.
Treatment of the specific topical areas
identified in NEPA Section 102 as well
as in CEQ and EPA Guidelines.
Discussion of manner and degree of pub-
lic participation in the decision-making
process.
Each analysis is evaluated in terms of its treatment of the above ele-
ments. Evaluation is based on a scale of 0 to 2.
0 means topic is not mentioned
1 topic is identified but treated very superficially at best
2 topic is treated to a reasonable extent
15
-------
As is clear from the matrix,
. Explicit NEPA considerations are consistently addressed in state-
ments but not always in assessments
. Socio-economic considerations are inadequately addressed
. Environmental costs of alternatives are rarely considered
MISCELLANEOUS PROBLEM AREAS
Certain problem areas are identified below which are neither procedural
nor substantive. Nevertheless, they have some bearing on the grant ap-
plication process and are included here for that reason.
a. Limitation of state and local technical capability
To ensure full compliance with EPA regulatory procedures, state
and local agencies may be compelled to consider alternatives which
they lack the technical competence to evaluate. For example, analy-
sis of the environmental impact of ocean sludge disposal as an al-
ternative to an incinerator poses the requirement for a sophisti-
cated technical analysis which is beyond the scope of most locali-
ties.
b. Public interest in secondary impacts
As a general rule, public interest in proposed wastewater treat-
ment systems is intense with respect to three specific areas:
. the actual service to be provided, and cost of such service
. impact of plant construction and operation on neighboring resi-
dences
. potential polluting effect of plant effluents on recreational
water resources
However, the public is often less concerned about indirect or
secondary socio-economic consequences, particularly when such
effects may not develop to their fullest in the immediate future.
For this reason, even in those few occasions when public partici-
pation enters the application process in an active manner, its
influence generally affects only immediate and potentially tangible
concerns such as the aesthetic implications of treatment plant
siting or the possible impact of effluent discharge on the local
receiving water and service costs.
16
-------
"vj
FIGURE 2.
SUBSTANTIVE ELEMENTS
SUMMARY EVALUATION* OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
Pre-existing
Conditions
Nature of
Project
Environmental
Effects
Assessment
0
1
Statement
2
0 - Topic not mentioned
1 - Topic identified but not treated
2 - Topic discussed
Assessment
2
2
Appraisal
0
2
Construction vs
Operation
Natural
Environment
Soc io-economi c
Alternatives
Technical
Feasibility
Economic costs
Environmental
Costs
Explicit NEPA
Considerations
Public
Participation
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
...2
2
1
1
2
2
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
1
-------
c. Growth versus environment
In relatively underdeveloped areas, the construction of a new
wastewater treatment facility is not only a powerful stimulus to
local growth, but also influences the direction of population
growth. Such growth is often favored by the local government
because of economic considerations. This orientation deempha-
sizes consideration of environmental costs such growth may pro-
duce. The paradoxical consequence may be that the wastewater
treatment plant originally funded by EPA for environmental en-
hancement purposes, could in some instances actually entail a
considerable unforeseen long-term environmental cost induced by
commercial and industrial development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the course of the analysis of the problem areas identified in the study,
it became clear that many of these could be categorized on causal bases.
That is, a group of specific problem areas though differing among them-
selves to some degree were seen as traceable to a common root cause. For
this reason, the recommendations that are presented here are on the whole
generic in nature. It seemed almost trivial to develop a specific and
implicitly obvious recommendation for each individual problem area listed.
The following discussion identifies the key root causes. Under each are
listed the problem areas considered to derive from the cause. Specific
recommendations are also presented.
a. Staffing resources and orientation
Most of the problem areas which reflect either inadequate review
procedures or inadequate concern with environmental considerations
appear in the context of an agency staff lacking defined environ-
mental expertise. Nearly always an agency will develop an orien-
tation more related to the actual character of its staffing than
to comprehensive realization of its mandates. For example, a
Department of Public Works is essentially an engineering design
and operating entity. Mere responsibility for considering the
environmental implications of its activities will not in itself
generate sensitivity to environmental issues if no one on its
staff is environmentally oriented. Aside from the question of
orientation, environmental expertise is an absolute necessity if
environmental surveys are to be performed, satisfactory assess-
ments are to be written and if informational inputs from the con-
sulting engineer or other sources are to be realistically evalu-
ated. The same argument can be applied to a legislative body
18
-------
which lacks technical review capability. It applies to a state
review agency whose technical competence includes environmental
expertise but whose workload is so heavy that its environmental
expert(s) may be involved in too many on-going activities to per-
mit day-to-day attention in-depth to the specifics of local pro-
jects.
Relevant problem areas:
. Inadequacy of Department of Public Works with
respect to the evaluation of environmental con-
cerns for assessment preparation
. Legislative review
. Inadequacy of A-95 review process
. State assessment review
. EPA regional offices' processes
. Post-grant monitoring
. Limitation of state and local technical capability
RECOMMENDATION:
Obviously the ideal solution to the personnel resource dilemma would be
the provision of adequate manpower to the involved agencies. In practice,
of course, these agencies lack, the fiscal resources that freely elective
staffing would require. Accordingly the following approaches are sug-
gested:
i Under a special grant program such as 40 CFR 35 (an element of
the Code of Federal Regulations which deals with procedures through
which EPA provides state and local grant assistance) EPA may elect
to subsidise the requisite manpower on a total cost-sharing basis.
The allocation of such manpower would be based on various criteria
including size and population of area to be serviced^ number of
priority treatment plants scheduled and other factors directly
affecting the need for the personnel. (Appendix E- 40 CFR 35.)
ii The institution of changes in local capital budgeting regulations
to permit the application of capital funds to acquisition and
support of specialized personnel required in association with
long-term capital investment programs.
19
-------
iii The establishment of community and regional procedures which would
enable local entities to freely utilize personnel with appropri-
ate qualifications in departments or agencies which are not under
the direct jurisdiction of the project initiating agency.
iv The use of local university staff members or other qualified
individuals on a short term consulting basis.
b. Exclusion
In some instances it appears that the agency initiating the grant
application may minimize or ignore potential informational input
from other local or state governmental bodies or may fail to pro-
vide channels for the injection of local public views into the
early stages of the decision-making process. Negative or restric-
tive actions of this type are regarded as representing the exclu-
sion of effective participation of entities outside of the initi-
ating agency. It is probable that the exclusion procedure reflects
the view of the initiating agency to the effect that only it has
the necessary engineering and technical expertise required to
evaluate the alternative designs submitted by the consulting en-
gineer or developed in conjunction with him. This view is gener-
ally valid as far as it goes. However, it fails to take into
account the need for very early environmental assessment of the
potential environmental impacts both direct and secondary of the
alternatives being considered. Such an assessment is important
to ensure that the final selection of the proposed design is not
based exclusively on economic cost and technical factors.
Relevant problem areas:
. Early public participation in initial planning stages,
including initial conceptual approaches.
. Lack of municipal, state and local interdepartmental
coordination
. Public hearings and failure to take advantage of
possible inputs from other agencies
20
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In order to ensure both the opportunity for early and responsible public
participation and local agency project review on an effective basis in
the early conceptual and design program stages., it is suggested that EPA
take advantage of the step-wise procedure now applicable to construction
grant applications. Paragraph 35.920-3 of CFR 35 should be modified to
include among its requirements the following:
i Factual records and transcripts of public hearings conducted
in advance of final design selection. These hearings should
consider the alternatives proposed by the Department of Public
Works in terms of their general feasibility, costs and pre-
sumptive environmental impacts based on previously conducted
environmental surveys and studies.
ii Documentation demonstrating that presentations of the considered
alternatives had been circulated to interested local agencies
for their comments and suggestions together with an evaluation
of these by the Department of Public Works (or their equivalent).
The paragraph should also include a provision stating that no application
relating to Step 2 of the grant application procedure (grant support for
preparation of construction drawings and specifications) would be accepted
by the appropriate EPA regional office unless the requirements applicable
to Step 1 (grant support for preparation of preliminary plans and studies)
were satisfied in all respects.
c. Subordination of environmental concerns
It is virtually inevitable that the initiating agency will be more
concerned with technical issues than environmental considerations.
For this reason, the relatively low priority afforded potential
environmental impacts is not adduced as a criticism but rather as
a recognition of the realities of the situation.
Relevant problem areas:
. Timing of environmental studies and assessment
preparation
. Failure to present preliminary plans at an early date
to the lay public and to appropriate agencies together
with the environmental implications of the proposed pro-
ject.
21
-------
RECOMMENDATION':
In an earlier context the point was made that the addition of environ-
mental expertise to the staff of the initiating agency would be helpful
in generating a more environmentally sensitive orientation. It is recog-
nized however that this in itself is not sufficient to ensure that en-
vironmental factors have been adequately evaluated before final design
selection. Acaordingly3 it is suggested that once the technical alterna-
tives have been identified and their essential features delineated^ an
environmental survey be initiated by the applicant as early as possible
to assess the potential impacts of these alternatives. This survey should
be receptive3 of course3 to comments and suggestions from other local
agencies and the lay public. Further this survey must be completed suf-
ficiently in advance of the public meeting at which the considered al-
ternatives are first to be presented to assure complete identification
of all relevant environmental considerations. This presentation would
permit local program review before commitment to the final proposed pro-
ject and at the same time would serve as an important information base
for the environmental assessment. It is also suggested that Paragraph
35.920-3 be modified to require submittal of the assessment as a compon-
ent of the information required under Step 1.
d. Organization
The variations in the organization of EPA regional offices has
already been mentioned. One consequence of this is a corresponding
variation in level of priority assigned to regional responsibilities.
Both EPA's philosophy and current management policies appear to be di-
rected to the increase of regional autonomy. This position can be under-
stood on the basis that the regions have better understanding of local
problems and issues than the Headquarter's staff and that autonomy is
necessary to ensure unhindered freedom of action. However, it does not
necessarily follow that regional autonomy in terms of action is incom-
patible with regional uniformity in terms of organization.
Relevant problem areas:
. EPA regional offices' processes
. Appropriate assessment of technical expertise
. Independent Environmental Assessment and Statement
reveiw responsiblity
22
-------
RECOMMENDATION:
It, is not within the scope of this report to suggest how EPA best reor-
ganize its regional offices to achieve formal organizational similarity.
However, it is recommended that, from an overall Agency viewpoint., con-
sideration should be given to functional interrelationships. For example,
should responsibility for statement preparation rest with the regional
office construction grants group or should it be an independent entity
reporting to the Deputy Regional Administrator? The latter arrangement
might permit greater objectivity and freedom in assessing and evaluating
controversial issues.
e. Guidelines and technical procedures
The identified problems associated with the environmental analy-
ses (particularly assessments) reviewed in this study were sub-
stantive in character and in nearly all cases involved either
omission of discussions of important topical areas or inadequate
treatment of these. In a few instances, the organization of the
presentation was poor in terms of sequence. The principal short-
comings, which were previously noted were failures to address
the following:
. Explicit NEPA considerations*
. Secondary environmental consequences with specific reference
to socio-economic considerations
. Environmental costs of alternatives
RECOMMENDATION:
Detailed guidelines should be generated (by EPA Headquarters) to supple-
ment information provided in 40 CFR 6.**(EPA Regulations applying to the
preparation of environmental impact statements and environmental assess-
ments.) These guidelines would itemize specific environmental and socio-
economic factors to be considered in the course of performing an impact
analysis.
* Such as short-term uses of the environment vs long-term productivity
** See Appendix F
23
-------
V APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A CASE EXAMPLE STUDIES 25
APPENDIX B CHRONOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES 67
APPENDIX C EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES 70
APPENDIX D "ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FWQA ACTIONS" 90
(COM 3200.1)
APPENDIX E EPA General Grant Regulations and Procedures;
State and Local Assistance. Interim Regulations. 133
EPA Revised Construction Grant Regulation.
40 CFR 35, subpart E, issued February 28,1973. 149
APPENDIX F EPA Interim Regulation: Preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Statements. 40 CFR 6, issued
February 17, 1973. Impact Statements 157
APPENDIX G EPA Water Pollution Control: Construction
Grants for Waste Treatment Works, issued
February 11, 1974 175
24
-------
APPENDIX A
CASE EXAMPLE STUDIES
For purposes of this study, four case examples were selected based on
type of jurisdiction (single and multi) and type of area (rural/urban
and urban). As these terms are used in the context of this study, multi-
jurisdictional is distinguished from single jurisdictional in that the
former usually conforms to one of two of the following patterns:
. Provides wastewater treatment and interceptor facilities
within an area that includes a municipality and surrounding
rural areas.
. Provides utility services in a special district that includes
several urban jurisdictions
A rural/urban area is one containing a city whose immediate surroundings
are rural rather than suburban.
The final choice of specific study examples was determined by the avail-
ability of environmental analyses, representativeness of similar areas
and the evolutionary stage of the grant application process. It was con-
sidered that more case information would be available for projects which
were already in a reasonably advanced stage. The selected areas are be-
lieved to be good geographical representations of the general conditions
prevailing nationally.
Figure £1 on page 6 which illustrates the "flow" of environmental analy-
sis preparation and circulation as prescribed in EPA guidelines may pro-
vide a useful reference in reviewing the following case example studies.
Prior to December 1970, wastewater treatment facility grants were admini-
stered by the Federal Water Quality Administration (within the Department
of the Interior). The procedures applicable to environmental analyses
differed from those of EPA in the following respects:
The FWQA Regional Offices might require assessment review
by other Federal agencies (EPA does not).
Environmental appraisals and negative declarations were
not required if it was determined that the proposed project
would not warrant preparation of an environmental impact
statement.
25
-------
The FWQA environmental assessment guidelines relating to Waste
Treatment Works do not explicitly present the requirement that
the public be afforded the opportunity to review the assessment.
However, guideline preamble references the fact that Council of
Environmental Quality guidelines "stress the need to assure ade-
quate review of projects and Environmental Statements by all con-
cerned citizens and agencies". It is logical to consider that
adequate review or projects must include evaluation of environ-
mental assessments pertaining to them.(See Appendix D, Page 90
FWQA Order COM 3200.1, dated October 15, 1970)
CASE EXAMPLE 1: JACKSONVILLE-DuVAL
COUNTY, FLORIDA
TYPE Single jurisdiction - rural/urban
NATURE OF
PROJECT Sludge disposal incinerator. This incinerator is
one project element of a comprehensive Sewerage
Improvement Program designed to provide sewage col-
lection and treatment for the core and current sub-
urban areas of Jacksonville.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
May 1969 City Council resolution that Mayor can ask for Federal
sewage treatment plant
June 1970* Original grant awarded
August 1972 EPA Regional Air Pollution Group states that the local
incinerator emission limitation is more stringent than
EPA's requirement; therefore, it was assumed that there
would be no adverse air environmental impact
April 1973 State decides project is a priority
* Initial guidance on NEPA requirements was not in effect until October
1970, therefore an assessment was not required until a subsequent grant
was awarded in June 1973.
26
-------
GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW'- JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA Figure 3
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CONSULTING ENGINEER
Assessment
Other City "
Agencies
including
Area Plan-
ning Board
(A-95 Clear-
inghouse)
Design ^
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mayor's Office
4
Legal Division (sends notice
I request for
JL proposed reso-
Y lution or ordin-
ance)
Assistant Secretary to Council
Agenda
W (No analysis performed)
Introduced to Council
Appropriate Council Committee
(By President of Council
JL with recommendation of
W Secretary-if involves
* money always goes to
Finance Committee plus
others)
Reported Out of Committee
I
Council
w grant award condition
Public Hearing
State Agency
I
EPA Regional Office
Note: Assessment
bypassed other
city agencies
and A-95
Clearinghouse
27
-------
May 1,1973 Department of Public Works forwards assessment to the
State with a copy to the Regional Office in Atlanta
May 10,1973 State forwards grant package to EPA Regional Office
without the assessment. It was assumed that EPA had
received the assessment directly from the locality
June 6,1973 Locality again forwards a copy of the assessment to EPA
June 22,1973 EPA Facilities Branch recommends that a negative declara-
tion be issued if the upcoming public hearing doesn't
show any public opposition
June 27,1973 EPA Grants Administrator states that an EIS or negative
declaration determination will be made after public
hearing is held
June 28,1973 EPA legal group states that the assessment lacks public
participation
June 30,1973 EPA makes offer of grant to locality with special con-
ditions {i.e., public hearing is required)
July 13, 1973 Locality accepts the grant with the conditions and states
that they will be complied with
July 25, 1973 EPA informs locality again of the special condition of
the grant agreement relating to public participation
July 25, 1973 EPA informs the locality's consulting engineer about
the public hearing requirement so that contracts and
bidding will not be undertaken prematurely
July 28, 1973 Resolution in City Council authorizing the Mayor and
Corporation Secretary to accept the grant
September 6,1973 Date scheduled by locality for public hearing
Specific Comments Applicable To This Case Example
EPA Regional Office . Any properly justified alternative to incinera-
tion would have been accepted
. Assessment review not given number one priority;
decision to issue EIS is based largely on level
28
-------
Department of Public
Works
Area Planning Board
(A-95)
City Council
Mayor
of public opposition, size of project and
amount of backup information
No guidance available for consideration of
secondary impacts
Environmental factors are not weighed or con-
sidered in alternative evaluation
Assessment not submitted to other agencies on
grounds that they had approved the design
Relies heavily on consulting engineer for
assessment as well as design
Did not officially receive assessment
More interested in broad conceptual planning
than in specific projects
Do not have site planning responsibility
Not overly concerned with secondary impact
Can make recommendation only -- lack line
authority -- no follow through
Assumes Mayor's organization has complied with
all applicable regulations
Lacks adequate review staff, guidelines and
procedures
Does not know grant application process details
Alternative selection does not consider en-
vironmental issues
Internal city environmental review procedures
are weak
Secondary impacts not important
29
-------
State A-95
Clearinghouse
City of Jacksonville
. Does not routinely analyze review comments
. Does not routinely review assessments
. A processing office only; limited capability
for technical environmentally oriented analy-
sis
Review process is well organized (See Fig.3,
Page 27)
TYPE
NATURE OF
PROJECT
CASE EXAMPLE 2: HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS
MuHi-jurisdiction/Urban-Rural
Replace three small old wastewater treatment plants
in the City of Hot Springs with an area-wide cen-
tralized plant providing advanced (tertiary) treat-
ment for peak wastewater flows; provide new inter-
ceptor lines, outfalls, and pumping stations within
the City of Hot Springs and in settled areas out-
side the City; rehabilitates the City's existing
sewage collection system in order to control storm-
water infiltration, prevent the escape of raw sew-
age and provide some measure of additional capacity.
The region that will be served by the central treat-
ment plant had a 1970 population of about 50,000
persons, of whom about 23,000 (almost all living in
the City of Hot Springs) were served by off-site
wastewater treatment. Hot Springs' 1980 popula-
tion is projected at 40,800.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
November
25 & 27, 1964
Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission holds pub-
lic hearing in Hot Springs regarding pollution of Lake
Hamilton, partly in Hot Springs, and Lake Catherine,
in surrounding Garland County and near Hot Springs. It
was stated that residences around Lake Hamilton and
Lake Catherine were major contributors to the pollution
30
-------
August 24,1964
February 27,1970
March 27,1970
because of the use of septic tanks set in impermeable
soil or rock.
Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission issues order
enjoining additional on-site waste water treatment sys-
tems and regulating existing on-site systems in all but
single-family residences within 300' of the shoreline
of Lake Hamilton and Lake Catherine.
Arkansas Pollution Control Commission holds a second
hearing in Little Rock. This one concerned the City's
discharge of inadequately treated sewage from its dis-
posal system into the two lakes and other water bodies.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
(formerly called the "Arkansas Water Pollution Control
Commission) issues "cease and desist" order (effective
May 1, 1970), directing the City of Hot Springs to stop
making new connections to the existing sewer system and
to prevent existing customers from increasing their dis-
charges into the system, the effect of which was to stop
almost all new construction in the City. It ordered the
City to submit plans for a comprehensive collection and
treatment system for the City and nearby areas of growth
by December 31. 1970.
City of Hot Springs adopts Comprehensive Development Plan,
including the Major Street Plan and Land Use Plan. These
plans were supposedly the bases for wastewater collection
and disposal facilities contained in the Master Sewer
Plan.
December 15,1970 Consulting Engineer for the City of Hot Springs presents
Master Sewer Plan (a part of the Comprehensive Plan) for
Hot Springs and the Metropolitan Area to the City Council
and the public. Secondary environmental impacts were not
evaluated.
May 4,1970
March 24,1971
March 26,1971
EPA regional office reviews Master Sewer Plan with
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
and Association of Arkansas Development Districts.
EPA approves sewer system design plan for Hot Springs
providing (a) single treatment facility, (b) advanced
waste treatment, (c) repairs to the existing system to
31
-------
June 1971
November 3,1971
December 7,1971
December 24,1971
March 14,1972
April 7,1972
May 5,1972
June 19,1972
July 28,1972
August 21»1971
October 27,1972
December 1972
control stormwater infiltration and escape of raw sewage
and (d) expansion of the collector system to serve more
of the metropolitan area.
City's consulting engineers complete Engineering Report
on a Sanitary Sewerage System for Hot Springs, Arkansas.
. Application for a federal grant for sewage treatment fa-
cilities in Hot Springs filed with the Arkansas Depart-
ment of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Hot Springs' application accorded State priority certi-
fication because of Cease and Desist Order.
A-95 review recommendation made by regional clearinghouse,
Hot Springs' application for federal grant received by
EPA.
Interim basin plan certified by the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology. The Hot Springs pro-
ject would have to be compatible with this plan.
Regional EPA files Notice of Intent to prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
Hot Springs City Council approves implementation schedule
for sewer treatment facilities to meet state and federal
requirements.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued.
EPA holds public hearing on Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
Final Environmental Impact Statement issued by EPA.
EPA approves grant to cover Phase I of sewer facilities
program.
Note: It was impossible to find records through which the history of the
Assessment could be traced.
32
-------
SPECIFIC COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE STUDY
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
1. The Environmental Impact Statement was prepared because of strong pro-
tests by residents along Lake Catherine regarding the location and size of
the proposed centralized wastewater treatment plant and the discharge of
the treated (tertiary) effluent into lake Catherine.
2 Even while the City of Hot Springs was considering various alternatives
involving, for example, different locations for a centralized plant or
combinations of smaller plants and rehabilitation of the existing system,
EPA Regional Office had almost decided upon the alternative it favored:
one centralized plant at Lake Catherine. No other sites for the plant
were seriously considered, although several points for the outfall dis-
charge were examined. However, no other combination of plant site and
discharge point offered a more favorable combination of area-wide service,
economy, capacity, and effluent dispersal.
3 The EPA Regional Office seems to have held the belief that the City
could exercise considerable control over the pace, scale and location of
growth, most especially outside the City, through the interceptor exten-
sions and the sewer improvement districts. In reality, however, the City
cannot exercise much control over development outside the City through
the formation of sewer improvement districts (which essentially support
collectors and hook-gps) because City can't compel formation of the dis-
tricts. The districts must first be formed by agreement of property
owners (by vote) and then approved by City or County government. Also,
City has subdivision regulation control for five miles outside of its
boundaries, but not zoning powers; which limits its control of growth.
4 The EPA Regional Office did not receive any clearinghouse review com-
ments, either at the,state or regional level; it received only notifica-
tion of clearinghouse approval. (See comments on clearinghouse review.)
5 EPA believes that the issue of the location of the treatment plant on
Lake Catherine and the effluent discharge was adequately discussed in the
EIS and that the discharge, after tertiary treatment, will npt adversely
affect the Lake's water quality.
State Clearinghouse (Arkansas Department of Planning and Development Coor-
dination]
1. The Department of Planning and Development Coordination is a co-equal
agency and does not exercise any authority over other state agencies. In
the absence of any state requirements for environmental reviews, the
33
-------
Department has no independent authority over the actions of other agencies
that may influence the environment.
2. The Department is very understaffed (only one or two people are assigned
to review planning and environmental aspects of all water quality projects
in the state) and unable to respond quickly to projects submitted to it for
review.
3. Only one agency, the Department of Health, commented during the state
clearinghouse review. In fact the clearinghouse thought it worthwhile to
notify only two agencies (Departments of Health and Pollution Control and
Ecology) of the project during its review.
4. The Department was not contacted by EPA during the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Statement; it did contact the two agencies mentioned
above.
Regional Clearinghouse (West Central Arkansas Planning and Development
District)
1. The City's Engineering Report on a Sanitary Sewerage System for Hot
Springs, Arkansas, prepared by the City's consultant had certain deficien-
cies, in reference to guidelines applying to federal, state and local plan-
ning agencies, such as:
a. The sewer plan is only partically responsive to the area-wide
goals, objectives and land use elements of the Comprehensive
Plan adopted by the City and the West Central Arkansas Planning
and Development District (WCAPDD).
b. Service areas, types and locations of existing and planned major
wastewater collection and disposal facilities and the location
of the regional treatment plant are not adequately specified in
the Engineering Report.
c. The allocation of responsibilities among the City, the Planning
Commission, the WCAPDD and the contemplated sewer improvement
districts for carrying out the sewer plan is not made explicit.
d. There is no indication that the sewer plan was considered by
area-wide agencies and authorities with an interest in the pro-
ject.
e. Despite the progress of the project, the WCAPDD had not yet
adopted a sanitary sewer plan for the Hot Springs Area Planning
34
-------
Jurisdiction. This Jurisdiction is an area which includes the
City and its surroundings and which would normally be planned
for by the District. As of the date at which Regional Clearing-
house comments were made by the District, this Agency was appar-
ently not required to adopt a sanitary sewer plan within which
individual approved projects would be incorporated.
f. The sewer plan does not adequately consider the advantages and
disadvantages of all alternatives, the financial costs of some
of them and all the possibilities for local financing of the
City1 share.
2. Considering that the WCAPPD is the only staffed planning agency in the
area, the District was not appreciably involved in preparing the sewer plan,
especially in relating it to the adopted land use elements of the Compre-
hensive Plan. WCAPDD was not more fully involved for a number of reasons:
it had an essentially advisory and review role for planning that was clearly
in the domain of local governments within its jurisdiction and the sewer
plan and comprehensive were basically city responsibilities. Also at the
time that many of its comments refer to (September 1971) it had not been
officially designated as the areawide planning organization (APO) by HUD
and the sewer plan itself had not been officially accepted by the HUD area
office.
3. Area-wide planning, certainly at the time the sewer plan was formulated
and discussed, was rather embryonic. There was no established regional ur-
banization plan, no water management plan and insufficient technical infor-
mation for a clearinghouse review.
4. The EPA Regional Office only had minimal contact with the District
during its review of the sewer plan and decisions on the location of the
treatment plant and the interceptor system. However, there was no contact
between the District and EPA during preparation of the EIS.
5. Tne A-95 review was essentially an internal procedure for the District,
as there were really no other agencies qualified to comment on the project
at the time. Even though the Hot Springs sewer plan was the District's
first major A-95 review, no comments were requested on the project from
agencies other than the Hot Springs Planning Commission during the A-95
process. The Commission acknowledged the request, but did not provide
comment.
State Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
1. The secondary impact of the treatment plant and the interceptors were
not considered by the State to be very important considerations in evaluating
35
-------
alternative schemes and in formulating specific project plans. Primary
effects were by far the most important factors considered by the Department.
2. The alternative treatment plant and interceptor plan selected was not
necessarily the least costly. From the Department's perspective it was
"best" because of the degree of treatment it offered (tertiary treatment
was considered a necessity here because of the environmental vulnerability
of the area, the importance of the environment to the economy and the de-
ficiencies in wastewater treatment that had to be redressed) and the mini-
mum operating and maintenance costs.
3. Because of the City's indifferent attitude in the 1960's regarding
water pollution and wastewater treatment the Department took a rather
strong position toward the City, culminating in the Cease and Desist Order
of March 1970. Since then, however, the City has been much more concerned
with reaching an effective solution to the problems. Actually, the Cease
and Desist Order was modified to permit connections in the sewered areas
of Hot Springs, with about 200 out of 500 applications for connections
approved.
4. The proposal for a large plant, 20 mgd, was principally a function of
the extensive infiltration into the existing system. The discussions on
the part of local residents relating to the EIS. especially the protests
of the Lake Catherine residents and the fact that recent legislation per-
mitted grants for rehabilitating existing sewer lines, persuaded EPA and
the Department to put more money into reducing infiltration, permitting
the plant to be reduced to 12 mgd capacity from 20 mgd later in the grant
process.
City of Hot Springs
1. The initial Cease and Desist Order discriminated against the City by
excluding the areas outside of the City. Development simply went outside
of the City where on-site wastewater treatment could be provided, increas-
ing the possibilities of pollution and the difficulty of eventually pro-
viding off-site treatment in these areas. When the ban was extended out-
side of the City it was difficult to enforce because of the widespread
absence of a building permit system, as a means of recording development,
and of zoning regulations as a control on land use.
2. Inequitable enforcement of the bans on development has placed Hot
Springs at a competitive disadvantage regarding the rest of the area,
inhibiting commercial (plans for 3 shopping centers are in abeyance) and
residential growth. (The EIS states that in October 1972 a backlog
equal to 25-30% of residential construction was being held up in Hot
Springs.)
36
-------
3. The nature of municipal government in Hot Springs with a full-time
mayor, a City Council and semi-independent agencies with appointed citizen
boards responsible for sewer and water investments and operations made it
difficult, especially before the seriousness of the City's problem was
recognized in 1970, to secure agreement on wastewater plans and programs
and to coordinate municipal efforts.
4. The grant conditions imposed by EPA and cited in the EIS require
formation of sewer improvement districts which will use independent bonding
authority to finance sub-interceptor lines and tie-ins. By making fulfill-
ment of the grant contingent upon the City's ability to form these districts
EPA not only placed an unenforceable burden upon the City, but misjudged the
ease with which they could be formed and their value.
a. The City, under the enabling legislation, has subdivision
jurisdiction only up to 5 miles outside of its limits. Out-
side of this boundary the City has neither authority in land
use or wastewater treatment nor planning responsibilities.
b. The sewer districts are formed upon petition of property
owners. Hence, even in the City, owners already relying
upon septic tanks may not wish to assume the long-term costs
(estimated at $150 to $200 a year) of collector lines and
tie-ins.
c. Even in the City, municipal officials expect that only 3
out of 4 potential sewer improvement districts in Hot Springs
will actually be formed (petitions have been submitted already
for 2 districts composing 55% of the unsewered area in the
City) while not more than half of the 12 potential districts
outside the City are likely to be formed. Some populous areas,
especially outside the City, may be left unsewered, negating
much of the value of the project as it is now conceived. (See item b)
d. Even with bond issue funds several of the districts will need
grants to complete their local system. Because plans for these
sewer improvement districts have not yet been formulated, the
level of grant assistance which may be required cannot now be
estimated. These districts may need additional funds because
allowing for what they may reasonably be expected to raise
through bond issues, some individuals believe there will be
insufficient funds to pay for collector sewers and local
sewer connections which are not eligible for EPA grant assist-
ance.
37
-------
e. According to the City's Task Force on Sewer Improvement Districts
some of the districts outside of the City may not be economically
viable because of the configuration of drainage basins, the low
density of development and its direction.
f. Unrealistic state requirements for the improvement districts (e.g.,
dual pumping systems) will increase unit costs in some districts
above what property owners may be willing to pay.
g. The City, which has accepted an enforced federal requirement for
an area-wide responsibility, will need close cooperation and aid
from federal and state agencies in organizing the improvement
districts.
5. The grant and environmental review process is too lengthy and compli-
cated (see Fig. 4,..Page 39).
6. The County, State Department of Health, the utility companies and the
APJ should support measures that will inhibit the proliferation of develop-
ment outside the sewer improvement districts, especially those outside of
the City.
7. An archaic state constitution (dating from 1874) and the financial,
economic and social problems of an aging resort area have inhibited the
City from moving more expeditiously in resolving water pollution wastewater
treatment problems.
8. The ban on hook-ups to the sewer system (initially imposed on Hot
Springs, then on areas outside the City) was a strong stimulus to action
on pollution control in an area that heretofore had a relatively minimal
concern with environmental issues.
38
-------
GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW - HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS Figure 4
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology (DPCE) issues
Cease and Desist Order citing
Hot Springs
Hot Springs adopts Comprehensive
Land Use Plan
Consulting Engineer presents
Master Plan for a Sanitary
Sewage System, with alteratives Bond issue passed by City
showing wastewater treatment ^ Council provides local
to Mayor and City Council. share for project
Plan adopted
EPA Regional Office & Arkansas DPCE review
Master Plan and EPA approves
concept for development of
interceptors and treatment
plant
City's application for federal
grant receives pYiority
certification from Arkansas
DPCE
A-95 review by regional
clearinghouse
39
-------
Protests on location of
treatment plant received
Application for federal grant
received by EPA
^.
Environmental assessment
received
EPA Regional Office of Construc-
tion Grants reviews application ^ Interim basin plan
for federal grant and Environ- * J certified by Arkansas
mental Assessment and consults DPCE
with state DPCE
EPA files Notice of Intent to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement
Preliminary Draft of EIS prepared
and reviewed within EPA
Draft EIS completed by Regional
Office of Grants Coordination
and distributed to CEQ, interested
and affected state and federal
agencies and the public
v
Public hearing on Draft EIS held
by EPA
40
-------
Final EIS issued by EPA Regional Office
Technical project review by EPA Regional Office
Area Engineers results in reduction
of treatment plant capacity and
upgrading measures to correct for
infiltration into existing lines
EPA Grant for Phase I approved
t
Final plans for Phases I
and II prepared by con-
sulting engineer and
submitted to Arkansas
DPCE
Petitions for formation
of new sewer improvement
districts in Hot Springs
submitted to City
-------
CASE EXAMPLES 3 a and 3 b: NASSAU-SUFFOLK COUNTIES, N.Y.
TYPE Single jurisdiction/urban
BACKGROUND In the Nassau-Suffolk Counties study area funds have
been requested for more than ten major projects involving
sewers, additions and alterations to existing wastewater
treatment plants, construction of new treatment plants,
and the construction of two outfalls. Environmental
Assessments relating to many of these projects had been
prepared and submitted to the New York State agency
(Department of Environmental Conservation). However,
at the time of the study discussed in this Appendix
(summer of 1973), virtually no Assessments had been re-
ceived by the EPA Region II Office.
As a consequence of these proposed projects and their
potential environmental impact, the Environmental De-
fense Fund petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. EPA Re-
gion II prepared a draft in 1971 and then a final EIS
in July 1972. The EIS is concerned with the collective
impact of all the various projects, addressing itself
primarily to environmental effects and other considera-
tions relating to ground water recharge and ocean out-
falls. This EIS was prepared without the availability
of Assessments as informational sources.
Dealing collectively with as many projects as this EIS
does, it is impossible to give full treatment to any one
project. Therefore, one of the largest, costliest and
most complex projects has been selected for analysis in
order to determine the effectiveness of the environmental
assessment process.
One project selected concerns the Suffolk County South-
west Sewer District program for providing interceptor
and wastewater treatment facilities for three towns and
four villages currently without service. The total pro-
ject provides for construction of lateral sewers, inter-
ceptor sewers, a secondary wastewater treatment plant,
and an outfall pipe to convey the effluent into the
Atlantic Ocean.
42
-------
A second project of similar proportions in the case study
area is the Nassau County Sewer District No. 3 treatment
plant and outfall. In terms of time, this project is more
advanced than the Suffolk County example and, therefore,
less susceptible to detailed environmental analysis.
CASE EXAMPLE 3a: Suffolk County, N.Y. Southwest Sewer District
TYPE Single jurisdicition/urban
NATURE OF
PROJECT: Construction of a sewage treatment plant, outfall and lateral
and interceptor sewer system.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
1962-1963 Study by Suffolk County Health Department determines that
sewer facilities are necessary to protect water supply.
1965 Suffolk County Sewer Agency (SCSA) founded to develop sewer
system for Suffolk County.
1965-1966 New York State Health Department awards grant to prepare com-
prehensive sewage plan for Long Island.
1966 Report prepared for Suffolk County by Bowe Walsh and Associ-
ates, consulting engineers.
1966 SCSA recommends a plan to sewer an area approximately twice
the size of the current Southwest Sewer District.
1967 Public referendum to finance plan defeated even though some
50 to 60 public meetings were held prior to the election.
The plan is believed to have failed for two reasons: (1) po-
litical difficulties in the County prevented the unification
of all factors behind the SCSA and; (2) SCSA lost public
credibility due to inexperience, small staff and "NEWSDAY",
Long Island's main newspaper, which opposed project.
1967-1968 Suffolk County Sewer Agency reorganized following election
and sewers for Suffolk County became a bi-partisan issue.
1968 Sewer Advisory Committee established by County Executive to
advise SCSA.
43
-------
1968 SCSA commissioned a new report and feasibility study to re-
solve earlier problems.
1969 New sewer pla.n recommends reducing size of SWSD
and eliminating groundwater recharge to reduce costs. The
public was not as aware of the environmental issues connected
with recharge at this point. Major issue was project cost.
Report also recommended outfall into the Atlantic Ocean to
dispose of the effluent.
1969 Public referendum on new plan barely passes, approving
$291,000,000 for sewer facilities construction. The need
for sewers in this populated segment of the County was
stressed in approximately 50 public meetings held on the
issue.
1970 Responsibility for County program was shifted from SCSA to
Department of Public Works because SCSA was relatively small.
Sewer subdivision program given to SCSA to operate instead.
This program required municipalities to put sewers in new
subdivisions; an important program in itself but beyond the
scope of this study. DPW now had major responsibility for
construction of the Southwest Sewer District.
The program was reviewed by the Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission (February 1970) for conformity with regional de-
velopment plans. This Agency assigned a high priority to
the project and suggested its expansion to include the entire
drainage basin. Project reviews were also conducted by the
New York State Office of Planning Coordination (February 1970)
which approved the program.
1970-1971 Government reorganization in Suffolk County, influenced by
changes in New York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation, resulted in consolidating the Sewer District, DPW,
Department of Health, and others into the Department of En-
vironmental Control. This new department was given author-
ity for the project. However little progress in the project
itself was made during the reorganizations.
1971 Some contracts were let for design of project components, the
only progress made in the almost three years since the refer-
endum passed. The Suffolk County Council onxEnvironmental
Quality (SCCEQ) which had reviewed the project, reported to
the Suffolk County Legislature on November 1, 1971. The re-
port contained recommendations for continuing the project
44
-------
as well as recommendations, including conducting research
on alternative methods of wastewater treatment and discharge
to groundwater. SCCEQ also suggested that the County under-
take a land acquisition program to provide for surficial and
aquifer recharge.
1972 To qualify for assistance under state environmental bond
issue construction had to begin by March 30, 1972. There-
fore construction was started on portions of the laterals
and interceptor system. The remaining portions of the pro-
ject were approved in 1972 including outfall, treatment plant,
and interceptor system. Contracts let for engineering and
construction.
Late 1972 Construction of project stopped as a result of a reduction
in federal funds. Local groups organized to halt it perman-
ently due to rising costs and the burden on taxpayers.
March 1973 A new report on financing for the Southwest Sewer District
was prepared giving total project costs based upon escalating
calculations until completion. Total costs were estimated
at $588,000,000 of which 55% is guaranteed by state and fed-
eral funds. Construction resumed after 6 month hiatus. County
Executive and legislature made decision to complete the pro-
ject following new report.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE STUDY
Environmental Protection Agency
1. EPA had no environmental assessments available on Nassau-Suffolk pro-
jects, although they had been submitted to the State. (They are being
received by Region II as of the spring of 1974.)
2. Environmental assessments were not used in the preparation of the En-
vironmental Impact Statement because of the unavailability at the time.
3. Regional office complained of lack of guidance from Washington on
environmental matters; even after NEPA. (FWQA Guidelines were still in
effect; these had not, apparently, been rescinded, even after later EPA
guidance issuances were promulgated.)
4. No early projects were reviewed from environmental perspective unless
there was the possibility of a lawsuit.
45
-------
5. EPA office would like the early State plans updated. (These plans had
been completed several years ago but implementation was postponed due to
lack of funding, when funds become available, these plans were resubmitted
without updating.)
State Clearinghouse (New York State Office of Planning Services)
The state clearinghouse, the New York State Office of Planning Ser-
vices (OPS) circulated the consulting engineers PNRS Letter of Intent
(prepared by Bowe, Walsh and Associates, dated December 22, 1969) according
to OMB circular No. A-95. Only the Department of Transportation commented,
noting the proximity of the project to state highways. After meeting with
the county's engineer, approval to advance the project was granted and the
A-95 process at this stage was completed in February 1970.
Review Procedures for A-95 clearance through the State Clearinghouse,
Albany.
FIGURE 5
PNRS letter of intent from Albany (OPS)
I
Region I
Review Agencies Comment
I
Albany (OPS)
Applicant
46
-------
Metropolitan Clearinghouse (Tri-State Regional Planning Commission)
1. The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (TSRPC) is the metropolitan
"areawide" clearinghouse for the region including the Nassau-Suffolk area;
the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Commission serves as TSRPC's agent in
reviewing nonregional projects.
Most of the projects identified in EPA's EIS are regional including
the ones under discussion in this case study.
2. Tri-State's comments on the Suffolk County project date back to Febru-
ary 1970. Its comments were made in response to the PNRS Letter of Intent
which was submitted by the County's consulting engineer rather, than directly
from a County agency. The project applicant was however listed as the
Suffolk County Sewer Agency.
3. No other documents, such as environmental assessments, maps, or pro-
ject plans accompanied the PNRS Letter of Intent. Tri-State's review
does not include specific mention of environmental impacts but it does
indicate the project is not in conflict with Tri-State1s water supply and
sewerage plan and transportation plan. The project was given the highest
priority and the review recommends proceeding with construction immediately.
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control (SCDEC)
1. The active agency responsible for all sewer projects in the county.
The staff consists primarily of engineers with one full time environment-
alist engaged in departmental programs and working with consulting engineers
on specific projects.
2. The SCDEC has no special expertise in land use planning; project con-
siderations are based solely on scientific data.
3. The general belief at the Department is that the environmental assess-
ment is required as part of an established process and does not contribute
much to the final project decision. The purpose of the environmental
assessment process did not seem to be clearly understood.
4. Two environmental assessments were prepared for Southwest Sewer Dis-
trict Project on two different occasions; both were requested by EPA.
47
-------
5. The Department feels that the entire project satisfies federal require-
ments (including environmental matters) because funds were ultimately
granted. They did everything requested or required.
Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality
This agency is mandated by the County Legislature to perform environ-
mental reviews of county projects, but it has no enforcement powers. Its
primary functions are:
a. Preparation of guidelines for determining which projects are
likely to have significant environmental effects.
b. Formulation of recommendations for consideration by the County
Legislature and County Executive as to which county-owned
properties should be dedicated to the county nature preserve
or historic trust and what properties should be acquired by
the county for such dedication.
c. Provision of advice and assistance to the County Executive in
the preparation of an annual Environmental Quality Report.
d. Preparation of reports to the County Legislature and Executive
regarding county developments likely to impact the environment.
e. Performance, on request of the County Legislature or Executive,
of environmental reviews of designated projects which may affect
the environmental quality of Suffolk County.
The agency made no contribution to outfall project.
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board
1. No mandate for project review. Discussions with local officials on
projects are informal and generally through the Marine Resources Council
(MRC). The MRC is a committee of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board which advises the Board on environmental matter upon request.
2. The Board believes that Suffolk County is behind in development of
wastewater treatment facilities and that the cost of developing sewer
and treatment facilities will restrict development in the County.
3. The Board does not review environmental assessments.
4. It believes that the Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality
is more effective than Nassau County Environmental Management Council
48
-------
because former is provided for in the County charter and charged with spe-
cific environmental concerns.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC): Regional
Office at Stony Brook
1. Conducts New York State environmental review from a regional perspective,
2. The projects it evaluates are referred from the NYDEC, Environmental
Analysis Office for review rather than directly from the applicant.
3. The DEC Regional Office does not have any record of having reviewed
the Suffolk County Sewer District Project or Nassau County Sewer District
No. 3 project.
4. NYDEC review procedures for grant applications^
Application FIGURE 6
Pure Waters Section (of NYDEC)
Regional Clearing House:
Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA)
Regional Agencies (of OEA)
Management and Development
Environmental Control
Marine Research
Environmental Quality
Fish and Wildlife
Law Enforcement
Administration
Back to Albany OEA
49
-------
NYDEC Office of Environmental Analysis (PEA), Albany
1. All projects receive some environmental analysis by this Office, but
the intensity depends upon the workload at the regional offices.
2. State is more responsive to overall planning considerations than
regions, due in part to inadequate staffing and in part ot lack of
appropriate guidelines.
3. Albany OEA was not familiar with two projects in Nassau-Suffolk
Counties case study area.
4. OEA concedes that there are frequently major areas of omission because
of lack of attention in the review process.
OEA review procedure for wastewater grants
Applicant
I
FIGURE 7
NYDEC Bureau of Construction
Grants
I
Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA)
Regional Supervisors
Multi-Discipline Review by
State Specialists
O.E.A. Albany
Applicant
50
-------
Southwest Sewer District Grant Application Process
The Flow Chart which follows presents the key steps with respect to county
actions and decision making which preceed initiation of the grant applica-
tion. Note that the Department of Environmental Control holds a public
meeting only after the decision on the final plan has already been made.
FIGURE 8
GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW (Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District)
Comprehensive Plans
I
Department of Environmental Control
and Consultant (Pre-assessment discussions
of project) i
t
Preliminary Feasibility Report
and Cost Estimates
County Executive determines Preliminary Environ-
whether or not to include »_* mental Report by Suffolk
project in Capital Budget Report CouSi CoSncfl on F™?™
J
Couny Concl on Envron-
mental Quality
County Legislature approves or
rejects project
51
-------
Department of Environmental
Control awards "Planning Grant" Preliminary Assessment
to consultant or "Step I" Grant ^* Preparation
from EPA
l
Department of Environmental
Control holds public hearing
on completed plan
I
Plan presented to County Legislature holds
Executive and Legislature • * public hearing
for approval
\
Approved Rejected
l
EPA Grant Application to be
initiated, including Assessment
preparation.
52
-------
NYDEC Bureau of Construction Grants
1. Most knowledgeable agency with regard to study area projects with
complete files on both projects.
2. The Bureau has assessments for projects which EPA denies ever having
seen.
3. Requires application to be in conformance with state plans.
TYPE
NATURE OF
PROJECT
CASE EXAMPLE 3b: Nassau, N.Y. Sewer District No. 3
Single jurisdictional/urban
Construction of a sewage treatment plant, ocean outfall,
interceptor sewers and pumping station
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Pre-1968
1968 to
present
January \2S
1971
Developed area required sewers urgently because of cesspool
and ground water supply problems.
Since 1968 over 300 miles of sewers have been installed (1700
miles when complete in 1983). The Wantagh treatment plant
is finished and operating but not yet treating sewage. Out-
fall is completed in the land and bay portions and 8100 feet
of ocean section finished. Approximately one mile of out-
fall pipe and diffuser must be installed to complete the job.
Meeting to discuss selection of alternatives for final treat-
ment. Choices were a tertiary treatment plant with ground
water recharge or outfall into the Atlantic. Participants
included representatives from Nassau County, NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation including the Commissioner and
regional EPA. Meeting resulted in selection of outfall for
two reasons: to avoid dumping into Great South Bay and the
likely high costs and lack of demonstrated feasibility for
recharging. The use of an outfall had the approval of en-
vironmental groups at the time.
53
-------
SPECIFIC COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE STUDY
Nassau County Department of Public Works
1. Responsible for Sewer District No. 3. Requirements based upon County
Comprehensive Sewer Plan which covers four sewerage disposal districts in
Nassau County.
2. There is no environmental review process similar to the Suffolk County
procedure.
3. DPW presentations of the Sewer District No. 3 project includes no con-
sideration of secondary impacts.
4. The county states that its current policy favors a "no growth" situa-
tion.
Nassau County Environmental Management Council
1. Serves in advisory capacity to County Executive (upon request) to pro-
vide information and data and coordinate environmental affairs in the
County.
2. Has no legislative mandate for enforcement or operation.
3. Does not conduct reviews or write assessments but conducts public
hearings required under NEPA: to date it has conducted one hearing.
4. The Council does not have written guidelines for environmental assess-
ments. It is not familiar with federal guidelines.
Nassau County Planning Commission
1. Does not do environmental planning for capital projects. For waste-
water projects all planning is done by Department of Public Works and De-
partment of Health.
2. A-95 requests for comment is the only formal review procedure in which
it participates. No guidelines for environmental statements or other re-
views. Limited input into Sewer District No. 3 project; no written com-
ments on reports submitted to it have been made.
54
-------
Nassau County Sewer District No. 3 Grant Application Process
The following Flow Chart presents the sequence of major actions comprising
the grant application process. Note the lack of effective provision for
environmental review and for public participation in decision making.
GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW (Nassau County Sewer District No. 3)
FIGURE 9
Department of Public Works
County Executive
I
County Board of Supervisors
Establishes Sewer District
No. 3 in 1965
\
Consulting Engineer hired to
develop plans for the project
DPW
Board of Supervisors approve
Project
Consulting Engineer
to do study
Local Governments
55
-------
Flow of decisions for new projects
I
Nassau County Department
of Health - Review
I
County Executive and
Board of Supervisors
\
NYS Department of Environmental
Control Region I
I
Albany NYSDEC
I
EPA
56
-------
CASE EXAMPLE 4: EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
SPECIAL DISTRICT ONE (CALIFORNIA)
TYPE Multi-jurisdiction/urban
NATURE OF
PROJECT The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), a state-
chartered authority serves a 277-square mile area in por-
tions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties along the
Eastern edge of San Francisco Bay. Special District One,
a separate district within EBMUD, provides wastewater
treatment at a centralized plant for a 75-square mile
area.
Special District One's 1970 population was 618,600 with
689,300 forecast for 1995.
The project will considerably upgrade the level of treat-
ment of the single wastewater treatment plant now serving
Special District One. Primary treatment will be provided
for 290 mgd capacity and secondary treatment for 168 mgd
capacity in wet weather. Secondary treatment for 120 mgd
average flow, compared to 85 mgd now receiving primary
treatment, will be provided. An estimated 95% of the
BOD will be removed with the new facilities, compared
to 30% BOD removal at present. The existing outfall dif-
fuser into San Francisco Bay will be modified to provide
an initial dilution of 100:1 rather than the 25:1 presently
available.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
March 21,1968 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
adopts standards (Resolution 68-8) for wastewater dis-
charged by the plant serving Special District One. These
standards can only be met by a higher level of treatment
of discharged wastewater.
August 1970 EBMUD's engineers prepare preliminary reports on waste-
water interception, treatment and disposal directed at
extensive improvements to Special District One treatment
plant.
November 3,1970 Voters in Special District One authorize issuance of up
to $60 million in general obligation bonds by EBMUD for
improvements to wastewater treatment plant serving the
District.
57
-------
January 1971 Final reports on wastewater interception, treatment and
disposal regarding proposed improvements to Special
District One treatment plant prepared by consulting en-
gineers for EBMUD.
April 1971 State Water Resources Control Board issues report entitled
"Clean Water for San Francisco Bay," an impetus to the
project.
June 1971 Interim Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
Basin adopted by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
September 1971 EBMUD authorized issuance of $6 million in bonds for in-
itial work on improvements to Special District One plant.
January 1972 EBMUD application for federal funds approved by State
Water Quality Control Board and receives priority certi-
fication.
Early 1972 EBMUD1s Application for federal grant for the project
received by regional EPA.
March-April 1972 EBMUD's application for federal grant receives pre-evalu-
ation review by regional EPA Office of Construction Grants.
April 1972 EBMUD's consulting engineers prepare environmental assess-
ment on the project.
May 1972 A-95 review recommendation on the project made by metro-
politan clearinghouse.
November 27,1972 Regional EPA issues Negative Declaration on the project.
January 1,1973 Industrial waste source control ordinance required to be
adopted by federal grant conditions goes into effect.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE STUDY
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
1. The high level of environmental awareness in this region makes any
pollution control project, even a relatively non-controversial one, a
sensitive and visible public issue.
2. A major reason for considering plant expansion was the need to handle
wet weather flows and to upgrade the level of treatment to meet mandated
58
-------
state and regional standards. There was no significant alternative to the
selected plan. An EIS would not have produced any appreciable change
in the project but would have delayed it and increased the costs by 12 per
cent. There was no significant pressure for an EIS from the public or
any individual local governmental agency.
3. From regional EPA's poipt of view, and within the confines of the pro-
ject as conceived by the applicant (EBMUD) and certified by the state, the
major unsettled points were the treatment process, wet weather flows and
the adoption of an industrial waste ordinance. The project as a whole was
a response to environmental quality concerns voiced by the Regional
Quality Control Board.
4. Regional EPA feels that there is some inherent conflict in having the
environmental assessment prepared by the same engineer who will do the pro-
ject design. New regional procedures identify environmental considerations
at an early stage, close to project conception.
5. State Water Quality Resources Board is a very effective and confident
agency, setting priorities for projects in the region and remaining involved
through the grant process and periodically monitors treatment plant compli-
ance with grant conditions. The regional EPA office and the Board have an
agreement on procedures and practices of mutual interest.
6. If the project were being reviewed now more attention would be accorded
its secondary environmental effects and its impact on air quality.
State Clearinghouse (Director of Management Systems)
1. Under the strong California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the State
Clearinghouse reviews the project after certification by State and regional
Water Quality Resource Boards and prior to submission to Federal EPA. The
State seeks comments (from State agencies only) early in the procedure to
permit problems to be resolved and will not give its approval until all
issues are settled.
2. CEQA provides for a review considering the "growth inducing" nature of
the project and measures that have been taken to mitigate any detrimental
effects of the project.
3. The most compelling comment received during the State Clearinghouse
review was from the state agency responsible for air quality. They stated
that in critical air basins, such as the EBMUD is in, new wastewater plant
capacity should be limited as a deterrent to growth and further degradation
of air quality. They advanced a series of projections based on zero immi-
gration and low household size that would minimize growth; projections that
59
-------
the State Water Quality Resource Board accepted for the project.
4. At the time of the EBMUD review the state did not require as complete
an Environmental Impact Report (the equivalent of an Environmental Assess-
ment) as it now does at an early stage of the project.
Metropolitan Clearinghouse (Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG)
1. The Association of Bay Area Governments is responsible for A-95 review.
This review is only advisory and has a limited purpose; i.e., to determine
if a project is consistent with regional plans and development. From ABAG's
viewpoint the project satisfied these general criteria.
2. However, ABAG felt that a full Environmental Impact Statement should be
prepared. Its reasons were that the critical problems of solids (i.e.,
sludge) disposal and alternative methods of treating wet weather flows (and
their relation to treatment capacity) had not been adequately covered in
the applicant's environmental assessment.
3. The Agency's general feeling was that environmental reviews, especially
the EIS, are not especially valuable as they are now constituted. Usu-
ally by the time the EIS is prepared project commitments have been made
and there is pressure to abbreviate the review process to avoid cost in-
creases. Often the EIS turns out to be more of an informational docu-
ment, reporting on what has already occurred, than an aid in decision-
making. The Agency would like to see, as the State is now doing, full en-
vironmental reports geared to decision-making at an early stage in the
application process.
4. A key reason why the State did not accord the project a full environ-
mental review was that CEQA was only extended to Special Districts in April
1973, after this project was processed.
5. ABAG staff felt strongly that EPA and the environmental review process
had not yet faced the potential conflict between improved wastewater treat-
ment, land development and air quality. Because of the cost factors in
wastewater treatment, new plant and interceptor capacity are often larger
than is needed for immediate demands, stimulating additional development
and degrading air quality. In the Bay Region where the "no growth" posi-
tions is valid and popular these issues are especially acute.
6. When ABAG asked HUD to comment on the collective impact of its programs,
such as urban renewal, on population and development in Special District
One there was no response from HUD.
60
-------
7. The A-95 procedure doesn't allow for non-governmental contacts for in-
put, a weakness in the review process.
8. The special district, such as EBMUD, presents particular problems. It
is oriented to providing services and is often unrelated to political and
development realities at district and sub-district levels. Its independ-
ence and specialization may insulate it from having to resolve environmental
issues in a manner accessible to the public.
State Water Quality Resources Board
1. The Agency is sensitive to the growth inducing aspect of wastewater
treatment capacity and its relation to air quality. Hence they will try
to avoid adding capacity in critical air basins.
2. They are also encouraging the regionalization of wastewater treatment
facilities, partially to forestall adverse secondary effects.
3. Since the EBMUD project the State's attitude to conditions that could
effect the environment has changed considerably. Thus, the Agency now has
detailed project report guidelines, requires a full environmental report
concurrent with project application and seeks EPA concurrence at the con-
cept approval stage. Also, the question of solid disposal from the plant
would be handled as a"separate projecfrather than a"grant condition".
4. The Agency is aware of the time, effort and delays that permits and
approvals in the environmentally-sensitive Bay Area impose on wastewater
treatment projects. There are several semi-independent state and regional
groups responsible for safeguarding the environment (e.g., Bay Conserva-
tion and Development Commission) whose concurrence is required.
5. The Agency is very firm in settling water quality and waste discharge
standards that are mandatory for applicants and plant operators.
East Bay Municipal Utilities District
1. There were no public hearings on the project; the proposal for a waste-
water treatment plant simply appeared as an Agenda Item on one of the
elected District Board's meetings. The District interpreted the affirm-
ative 1970 vote on the bond issue as adequate public endorsement for the
project.
2. The District's staff or Board does not seek to have projects approved
by the legislatures of the municipalities for which it provides water and
wastewater treatment. As an independent authority it assumes legislative
concurrence and works directly with the public works agencies on project
implementation.
61
-------
3. Rather than treat the problems of solids disposal, wet weather flows
and water reclamation in an EIS, the District sought, successfully, to
have them handled as "Special Conditions"in the grant. Thus, while the
District conducts special studies of these critical environmental issues
the project is permitted to move ahead.
4. The District believes that sludge disposal, which the environmental
assessment hardly mentions, will be a major problem within the next five
years. This condition, associated with the large increase in plant capa-
city, will become a key environmental issue.
5. Despite the claims of the environmental groups, the District does not
believe that there is much potential for economically reclaiming and mar-
keting reclaimed water. However, as water reclamation is a visible and
central public issue in the region, the District is studying it as part of
the grant conditions.
6. The District has a Committee on Environmental Review which is working
on a master plan for water supply, but not on other more immediate environ-
mental problems.
7. The District considers the review, permit and approval procedure de-
laying, arbitrary and partly wasteful. (To add 300' to its Bay outfall
13 agencies had to approve and/or issue permits.) They would like to see
one agency with clear and consolidated authority in the water pollution
control area.
8. The metropolitan A-95 review seems to be considered a minor matter,
almost an inconvenience.
Municipal Agencies in the Affected Area
Special District One serves an area that includes several municipali-
ties, namely the cities of Alameda, Albany, El Corrito, Berkeley, Emery-
ville, Kensington, Oakland, Piedmont and part of Richmond. To gain some
idea of the relation of EBMUD to local government, some public agencies
(the City of Oakland and the Alameda County Planning Department) were con-
tacted. Their combined comments are noted below.
1. Operating departments in the largest municipality served, Oakland, are
pleased to have the wastewater treatment handled by a capable special pur-
pose agency removed from local politics. They seem to defer to EBMUD on
most technical matters.
2. EBMUD usually works directly only with local agencies, such as public
works and sewer departments, connected with its direct area of operations.
62
-------
Doesn't seek contact or coordination with other groups, such as planning
departments and legislatures, unless there is a specific reason.
3. There is no mechanism for close coordination between municipal agencies
and EBMUD and no assurance that agency recommendations will be followed. In
fact, state law gives a presumption of necessity to special districts; for
example, exempting water transmission facilities from zoning restrictions.
4. EBMUD does not usually send a copy of its agenda to municipal agencies
and the agencies very rarely attend EBMUD meetings. One of the agencies
thought that a hearing had been held on the project, when none had taken
place.
5. City engineers and DPW's will receive copies of project application and
plants for comment but usually do not respond in any detail.
6. Municipalities are now beginning to use the state environmental review
process to examine and question major projects.
Public and Environmental Groups
1. EBMUD's staff is highly competent but its policy and project decisions
are not subject to public accountability. It is a large, powerful and in-
dependent agency operating outside of any direct legislative or public
scrutiny. Hearings on budgets, plans or projects are rarely held and the
District practices and projects are not usually seriously questioned or in-
tensively reviewed by constituent municipalities. Meeting agendas are not
generally circulated.
2. EBMUD is usually able to persuade the state legislature and municipali-
ties within its service area to approve the project requests. It has an ex-
perienced and skilled public information staff and state legislative repre-
sentative.
3. EBMUD's Board is not considered representative of its customers. Regu-
lations tend to favor the re-election of incumbents and discourage public
participation in decisions.
4. Environmental groups did not feel that the growth and land development
issue was too relevant for this project, as it will not provide interceptors
to any undeveloped areas. However, provisions for additional wet weather
capacity could lead to industrial expansion and add to air pollution bur-
dent.
5. Organized groups felt that the sludge disposal and water reclamation
problems are germane to the project but these were given only cursory
63
-------
consideration during the environmental reviews. They expect these items
will become very important in future years as demands for water increase
and the options for solid disposal narrow.
The following Flow Chart illustrates the grant application process which
applied to this project. Note the prominent State review function. (See
Figure 10, Page 65)
64
-------
GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS FLOW Figure 10
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board adopts
standards for wastewater dis-
charged by Special District One
treatment plant
I
EBMUD's engineers prepare final
reports on wastewater treatment
and disposal for Special District
One plant
Voters in Special District One
approve bond issue for improving
treatment plants; in effect
giving local approval for the
project
j
Interim basin plan certified
by state WQCB
j
EBMUD application for federal
funds approved by State Water
Quality Control Board (SWQCB)
and receives priority certifi-
cation
State clearinghouse review of
project
J
65
-------
EBMUD's application for federal
grant receives pre-evaluation
review by regional EPA Office of
Construction Grants
1
EBMUD's consulting engineers
prepare environmental assessment
A-95 project review by metro-
politan clearinghouse
\
Regional EPA prepares environ-
mental appraisal and issues
Negative Declaration on the
project
l
Project proceeds to final
approval, grant awards and
construction
66
-------
APPENDIX B
CHRONOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
Responsibility for the administration of wastewater treatment facility
construction grant programs was transferred from the Federal Water Quality
Administration (FWQA) of the Department of the Interior to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency when the latter was established in December 1970.
Under both agencies various guidance documents were promulgated in order
to assist grant applicants in the preparation of environmental assessments.
These guidance issuances have evolved from an early relatively informal
document to a well developed presentation embodied within EPA's regulations
for the "Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements".
The assessment preparation guidelines applicable to documents reviewed
in this study are, in order of their issuance, as follows:
October 1970
FWQA
December 1971
EPA
Suggested Format for Environmental Assessment
This guidance document (see page6§)is part of an FWQA
issuance COM 3200.1 (Appendix D) addressed to the "En-
vironmental Assessment of FWQA Actions." It requires the
applicant to provide information identifying the project
location and a brief description of the nature of the pro-
ject. The document lists various topics which must be
treated under NEPA in the preparation of environmental
impact statements, including, for example, consideration
of alternatives, irreversible and irretrievable resource
commitments, etc. However, no concrete guidance is pro-
vided to assist the applicant in generating proper and
acceptable responses. Furthermore, the "Suggested Format"
merely lists the NEPA factors in a manner which suggests
that they all can be adequately addressed on the single
sheet form. Secondary effects are not cited at all.
Environmental Assessment Guide
This document represents a considerable advance over its
predecessor. The basic listing of items to be addressed
is essentially the same. However, a fair amount of ap-
pended material is provided which both advises the appli-
cant with regard to the substantive issues his assessment
should treat and furnishes a topical list of key items to
be considered in the development of an assessment for a
particular project. These topical items include both
67
-------
socio-economic and aesthetic considerations. In addition,
specific topics to be discussed in connection with public
participation in the project are outlined.
January 1973 Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements Interim
Regulations (40 CFR F, see Appendix h See Page 157)
Paragraph 6.56 (b) of these regulations discusses both pro-
cedural and substantive considerations applicable to en-
vironmental assessments of proposed wastewater treatment
projects. Assessment content requirements are specified
and include evaluation of alternatives, treatment of NEPA
issues as well as a description of how the project design
will minimize adverse environmental effects. This issu-
ance, aside from the detail it contains, is significant in
that it is a transitional step in which guidance has acquired
regulatory force.
It is expected that EPA will in the future require that the
environmental assessment appear as a component in the appli-
cant's overall Facility Plan. It is also expected that EPA
will provide additional guidance on the treatment of al-
ternatives and that this guidance will address environmental
as well as economic costs.
68
-------
FWQA FORMAT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Environmental Assessment
Waste Treatment Works Construction Grants
Project Identification
Name of Applicant:
Address:
Project Number:
Location of Project:
Brief Description of Project:
I. Probable impact of the project on environment:
II. Any probable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided:
III. Alternatives considered with evaluation of each:
IV. Relationship between local short-term uses of environment and
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity:
V. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources:
VI. Public objections to project, if any, and their resolution:
Applicant's Representative
Comments by State water pollution control agency:
69
-------
APPENDIX C
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
This Appendix presents reviews of environmental analyses of wastewater
treatment projects which were prepared by EPA regional offices and local
agencies for the four case examples studied under this contract. The analy-
ses reviewed are as follows(assessment preparation dates are shown):
Type of Analysis Issuing Agency
1. Environmental Assessment (10/70) Hot Springs, Arkansas
Environmental Statement EPA Region VI
2. Environmental Assessment (4/73 est.) Jacksonville, Florida
3. Environmental Assessment (6/73) Freeport, New York
Environmental Statement EPA Region II
4. Environmental Assessment (4/72) East Bay MUD, California
Environmental Appraisal and EPA Region IX
Negative Declaration
The review procedure, in all cases, was designed to evaluate the environ-
mental assessment documents in terms of the criteria in force at the time
of their preparation. Federal guidelines embodying these criteria have
evolved from summary issuances to more complete regulations during the
period October 1970 to January 1973 as discussed in Appendix B. (Page 67)
The reviews of the environmental analyses were based wholly on the con-
tents of the documents themselves and do not reflect ancillary information
derived during the course of case example site visits. This information is
presented in Appendix A (Page 25). During the examination of the analyses,par-
ticular attention was directed to such key factors as degree of adequacy,
range of environmental considerations treated, secondary effects, bases
for the evaluation of alternatives and general quality of presentation.
Although there are differences among the analyses, both in terms of scope
and manner of treatment, a few generalizations are possible:
In all cases the environmental assessments were prepared in
behalf of the local agency by a consulting engineering firm.
Because of the preparer's orientation, technical considerations
tended to outweigh environmental concerns.
70
-------
Secondary effects received virtually no consideration or
were treated in a superficial manner.
The relationship of the proposed project to state areawide
water quality management plans is usually not treated ex-
plicitly.
Adherence of the analyses to EPA guidance materials varied
from case to case.
There was a general tendency to underplay, if not totally
ignore public reaction to proposed projects.
Documentation of public participation was extremely scant
and the views of groups opposed to a given project, when
presented at all, are mentioned casually. Expressions of
public opinion were often presented as unanimously in favor
of the proposed project.
The discussion of alternatives, in the assessment analyses,
was markedly slanted toward a technical and engineering
orientation, in which capital and operating costs were given
considerable weight vs purely environmental considerations.
Generally, the alternatives considered in most detail are
various treatment processes as opposed to major issues such
as site options.
Most of the assessments were not well organized in that ade-
quate background information was not supplied. Frequently,
for example, it was not obvious why the project in question
was required until a relatively late point in the presentation.
71
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW
City of Hot Springs, Arkansas
Environmental Assessment by Applicant
and State Agency
General Comments
This document is somewhat repetitious and is wholly unorganized, reflecting
no awareness of (or at least no response to) guidance materials applicable
to the preparation of wastewater treatment system environmental assessments.
It consists of seven pages of paragraphs, often not sequentially related,
arbitrarily broken into numbered groups without topical headings. Con-
siderable information and data whose inclusion would be necessary in order
to make this Assessment a self-sufficient presentation is lacking.* This
Assessment does not specifically identify the applicant (City of Hot Springs)
nor the co-issuing State Agency (West Central Arkansas Planning and Develop-
ment District) nor is it dated.
Specific Comments
The Assessment presents no general background information regarding the
City of Hot Springs, no organized statement explaining its current waste-
water system problems and no introductory description of the proposed pro-
ject. Through scattered sentences throughout the document it can be in-
ferred that the project will construct:(a) a new single treatment plant
to replace three existing plantssand (b) sewer line construction. With
regard to the plant other than the facts that the process will include
"tertiary treatment" and chlorination, no description of the treatment
method is presented. With respect to the sewer line portion of the pro-
ject, there is no indication whatever of whether this will consist of
repair, replacement, extension or some combination of these. Further,
the areas these lines serve or are to serve arp neither identified or de-
scribed. It is stated several times that the City of Hot Springs is
currently under a "Cease and Desist Order" issued by the Arkansas Pollu-
tion Control Commission in March of 1970. While the nature of this "Cease
and Desist Order" is not explained in^the Assessment, it is clear from
other program documentation that it prohibits new sanitary sewer connec-
tions in the City (presumably until a satisfactory wastewater collection
and treatment system is built).
While self-sufficiency was not a requirement when this Assessment was
prepared, more background information would have made the overall pre-
sentation more understandable.
72
-------
Alternatives are alluded to, but are not individually identified, described
or discussed. These alternatives are referenced with respect to the treat-
ment facilities only. It is in no way made clear (in the Assessment) how
and to what degree they would affect sewer line requirements and planning.
The Engineering Report of 1970, prepared by Albert Switzer and Associates,
proposed ten alternative plans which were reviewed by Federal (EPA) and
State Authorities. One of these, Plan #7, which is based on a single treat-
ment plant discharging into Lake Catherine, is the proposed project. Gen-
eral considerations leading to the rejection of other alternative plans
are briefly summarized (costs, adequacy of treatment, unacceptability of
discharge into Lake Hamilton, etc.). but no supporting details pertaining
to these factors are provided.
The prospective environmental impacts of the proposed project do not appear
to have been really analyzed. Instead, they are addressed in such general
statements as: "... the proposed sewerage projects will enhance the environ-
ment for wildlife..." ; "... removal of the Hot Springs sewage from Lake Hamilton
will greatly enhance the use of this lake for body contact water sports ..."
"...odors will be minimized by proper design, operation and maintenance of
the facilities"; "... insect infestation is expected to be reduced from pre-
sent level..." and so forth. It is also stated that "... the area considered
for the location of the plant was chosen as that which offers the best
combination of the least impact upon land use and environment but consist-
ent with good engineering practice." The specific factors considered in
arriving at these conclusions are not discussed, nor even identified. As
stated earlier, the precise manner in which the current sewage system prob-
lem impacts the City of Hot Springs, as well as the scope of this impact,
is not described other than through the implications of the "Cease and
Desist Order". Similarly, the prospective benefits to the City and pro-
spective secondary environmental effects of the project are not specified
other than by a statement that the local citizens understand that the pro-
gram is necessary"... in order to improve the public health and enhance the
environment so as to provide an attractive location for tourists..." No
mention is made of the socio-economic implications of new sewer connections
once the project is completed.
The effects of project construction are briefly touched on in terms of
temporary disruption of "traffic patterns" during the installation of
sewer lines.
The Assessment considers that there will be "no irreversible or irretriev-
able commitments of resources as a result of the implementation of the pro-
posed regional plan." It is pointed out that the plant site, at the ex-
piration of the estimated useful life of the treatment facility (40 years)
could be restored "to a natural state and could be utilized for other land
73
-------
use." The consideration of short-term use vs. long-term productivity which
seems applicable here is not mentioned at all. Further, no estimate of
the land area to be pre-empted for the construction site is provided.
The discussion of public reaction to the project states that the local
citizens have been and will be kept fully informed of program plans and
that "there are no known public objections to the project regarding eco-
logical or environmental impact." On the whole, the impression is given
that the program has local support. A problem, not addressed in the Assess-
ment, is that the residents of the Lake Catherine area, which is to receive
the plant discharge, are far from happy about the project and feel that
they will be unfairly imposed on by the City of Hot Springs.
DRAFT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENTS FOR HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS
General Comments
Both of these Statements are reasonably adequate presentations of the
technical considerations involved in Hot Springs sewage system problems
and the proposed measures for their alleviation. The documents suffer to
a degree from rather poor organization of some of the topical areas dis-
cussed and from inadequate depth of treatment in one case and total omis-
sion in another. The Final Statement differs from the Draft version partly
in that it discusses certain areas in greater length, particularly the en-
vironmental setting, the proposed facilities, adverse effects of the pro-
posed action (on the environment), and conclusions and recommendations.*
The Final Statement embodies all commentary received as of the date of its
preparation.
Specific Comments(on the Final Statement)
Early in the Statement text it is explained that the project will involve
new sewer installation of existing rehabilitation sewers and the construc-
tion of a new treatment plant. These improvements will be located within
or near Hot Springs. However, there is no introductory statement as to
why the proposed facilities are required or the nature of the key problems
which initially prompted the grant application. It is not until discus-
sions of water quality standards, existing waste sources and existing
municipal wastewater treatment facilities (sub-sections of I B "Environ-
mental Settings - Page 53) are reached that some understanding is gained
Final Statement is discussed as it is the more complete of the two ver-
sions.
74
-------
of the City's problems. Additional information of this sort appears in
sub-section I C, "Description of Proposed Wastewater Facilities." For
example, the discussion of proposed measures for rehabilitating existing
sewer lines begins with a description of the current poor condition of
these lines.
The discussion of the prospective environmental effects of the proposed
action is distributed between Section II entitled "Environmental Impact
of the Proposed Action" and Section III which is called "Adverse Effects
of the Proposed Action on the Environment." Adverse effects are discussed
briefly in sub-section II A ("Adverse Impact of the Proposed Project")
which also contains, out of context, the reassuring prediction that "the
total impact of the proposed project will enhance aesthetics in the area..."
and "will ultimately increase the economic productivity in this recreation
and resort oriented economy." Section III discusses potential adverse im-
pacts such as noise, erosion and thermal pollution and indicates either
how these will be insignificant to begin with or how they will be minimized
or ameliorated. Section II, which considers the environmental impact of
the project in toto, should detail both the favorable and unfavorable an-
ticipated environmental consequences. It should also discuss secondary
environmental effects expected to ensue as a result of the proposed actions.
(These effects are mentioned, but only in terms of occasional references
to prospective enhancement of recreation, agriculture and other activities.)
The Statement identifies and discusses various alternatives, but does not
adequately detail the prospective environmental impact of each. However,
the brief summary of considerations which led to the selection of the pre-
ferred alternative is clear and well presented. A major shortcoming of
this discussion is the failure to consider the no-action alternative. An-
alysis of this alternative would have afforded an opportunity to project
the probable cumulative impact of the wastewater from the City of Hot Springs
and the suburban areas into Lake Catherine and Lake Hamilton. Such a pro-
jection, in turn, would have been helpful in conveying to the reader a more
vivid understanding of the need for the wastewater facility construction
program.
Section VII, "Public Participation in the Proposed Project," is somewhat
superficial in its treatment of a key issue of local public concern, as
follows - the effluent from the proposed facility is to be discharged in-
to Lake Catherine rather than Lake Hamilton. These water bodies geographi-
cally close, but are very different with respect to local land use develop-
ment patterns. The Lake Hamilton area is intensely developed while the
environs of Lake Catherine have been maintained in a semi-pristine state.
The idea of dumping "wastewater" into Lake Catherine had the effect of
uniting the local residents in opposition to the project. While much of
75
-------
the commentary reproduced in the Final Statement consists of protests (in-
cluding both letters from individuals and petitions) from Lake Catherine
residents, the Statement text only briefly notes these and does not dis-
cuss the issue at length. It is stated that Lake Catherine has a greater
assimilative capacity for the effluent than does Lake Hamilton. However,
the fears of the Lake Catherine residents that the effluent discharge may
be detrimental to health and to property values are not adequately addressed,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF SLUDGE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES - BUCKMAN STREET
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT - SEWERAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY
OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
General Comments
This Assessment was prepared as part of a grant application for EPA funding
for the construction of sludge disposal facilities planned to serve the
"Buckman Street Plant and Core Area, Sewer District No. 2 or North District
and the Southwest District." The facility is also to be used for the "final
disposal of septic tank sludge until homes with septic tanks are tied into
the municipal sewer system." This project is presented as a component of
the "Consolidated City of Jacksonville's Sewerage Improvement Program which
is designed to provide sewage collection and treatment for the Core Area
and the present suburban areas of Jacksonville." The implementation of
this program was triggered by the City's concern that the St. Johns River
and other waterways were being severely polluted by sewage discharges from
residential, commercial and industrial sources (which, in some cases, were
untreated).
Much of the material in the Assessment appears to be based on information
and analyses embodied in various reports prepared by Flood and Associates,
Inc., who are "Design Consultants" for Jacksonville.
In general, the content of the Assessment is, as far as it goes, essentially
relevant to the project. The overall presentation is, in large part, fairly
clear. However, more detailed background discussion would have contributed
to a more complete understanding of certain aspects of the project. Some
parts of the Assessment are presented in a manner suggesting that the
reader is familiar with, or has available information sources bearing on,
the overall sewerage program and specific studies relating to this project
in particular.
76
-------
Specific Comments
This Assessment generally follows the Federal guidelines which were appli-
cable at the time of its preparation (EPA document issued 12/14/71). It
does not, however, identify the local applicant agency nor does it indicate
the date of preparation. A section by section analysis follows:
Section I - "Brief Background" - provides an account of local pollutant
sources and the effects of disposal of sewage and industrial wastes into
local streams while the analysis is somewhat brief, it provides sufficient
information to make clear the need for the Sewerage Improvement Program
and for the Sludge Disposal Facilities. However, the background discussion
does not present the sludge disposal project into a perspective which would
be clear to a reader wholly unfamiliar with the local scene. For example,
it is stated that the "Master Sewerage Reports contain many maps and charts
of Jacksonville and DuVal County areas which indicate clearly the project
service areas referred to in this environmental assessment." However,
no general chart or map is appended to or incorporated within the Assess-
ment document. Hence, it is impossible, from the Assessment alone, to form
any meaningful impression of the nature or location of the areas to be ser-
ved by the project or to understand the relationship of the project to the
overall Sewerage Disposal Program.
Alternatives are treated in the following two sections - "Summary of Al-
ternative Project Solutions" (Section II) and "Comparison of Alternatives
and Selection of Proposed Process" (Section III).
Section II considers three principal disposal approaches - to land, to the
ocean and to the atmoshphere (incineration). Various procedures appropri-
ate to these headings are identified and their respective advantages and
disadvantages are listed. Most of these appraisals address specific en-
vironmental, economic and technical considerations.
Various land disposal procedures are considered, including lagooning, land
filling with dewatered sludge and underground disposal. Each method is
analyzed in terms of its advantages and disadvantages which include both
economic and environmental considerations.
Ocean dumping is presented as unsuitable because, among other reasons,
"this method has been rejected by the regulatory agencies including the
Environmental Protection Agency".
Incineration, which is proposed approach, is categorized as "disposal to
the atmosphere." This could be misleading to the extent that only the
volatile fraction of sludge material remaining after filtration is so
77
-------
disposed. The residue (about 30%) is dry ash wnich requires land disposal.
(This poses farfewer problems, however, than land disposal of wet sludge.)
Section III, "Comparison of Alternatives and Solution of Proposed Process",
presents six process sequences which were considered by Flood and Associ-
ates, Inc. These involve various combinations of process elements such
as heat treatment filtration and incineration. The end products, which
must be disposed of on land, are either wet solids or dry ash. Each pro-
cess sequence is analyzed in terms of operating costs per ton of solids,
operating rates, engineering opinions of probable future difficulties
and the probable amount of released odor. The selected sequence was
sludge storage - centrifugation - heat treatment - filtration - incinera-
tion - ash disposal. The unit operating cost for this process was about
the highest of any presented, but this consideration was overcome by
pointing out that some of the other processes, which appeared to be cheaper
on initial analysis, would in fact, prove more expensive because of neces-
sary modifications which would be required to make them perform satisfac-
torily.
This Section (III) does not provide any systematic treatment of possible
environmental effects (other than odor) of the alternatives considered.
Also, there is no consideration of short-term vs. long-term consequences
or of resource commitments as specified in Federal guidelines. The
Assessment should have included a sentence or two expressing this. The
selection of the proposed process reflected primarily an engineering
choice based predominately on technical considerations.
Section IV - "Detailed Environmental Evaluation of Proposed Facilities" -
addresses various prospective effects of the project such as its impact
on natural environment and potential social consequences. The effects of
facility construction are distinguished from those of operation.
The discussion of effects on water addresses expected improvements in the
quality of the St. Johns River and the salt marshes between it and Nassau
Sound in terms of expected safety of various recreational activities and
the favorable impact on marine biota. In general, however, the presenta-
tion relates more to the expected benefits from the Sewerage Improvement
Program as a whole than from the specific project under consideration.
The degree to which the project is expected to contribute to the benefits
expected from the Sewerage Improvement Program is not addressed.
The analysis of the expected impact of the project on air is not wholly
satisfactory. The discussion makes clear that incineration could cause
the emission of fly ash, SOo, and "possibly" nitric oxides. A wet scrub-
ber is to be installed which will "remove most of the fly ash and some
of the sulfur dioxide and nitric oxides." It is then pointed out that
78
-------
the addition of sodium bicarbonate to the scrubber water would remove all
of the S02 and NOX, but it is not stated whether this will be done or not.
Further, there is no discussion of disposal of the scrubber water or its
possible implications to the ground water. There is no mention of the
relationship of prospective emissions to ambient air quality standards.
It is explained why odors emitted by the facility should be minimal.
Effects of the project on land are presented in terms of the benefits of
dry ash disposal (for which only small landfill areas will be required).
The disposal facility is to be located on the Buckman Street plant grounds.
"near the middle of the industrial waterfront..."
With respect to social impact of the project, facility operation is ex-
pected to generate noise; however, this is not regarded as an adverse
effect because the facility will be housed in a "closed three story
building and the noise will be effectively muffled thereby". Further,
the manufacturer of the sludge disposal facilities is responsible for
meeting noise, odor, flysash, and "noxious gases" release specifications.
The effects of construction are briefly summarized and, as presented,
should not be objectionable.
Section V - "Opportunity and Extent of Public Participation" -
is brief, but we 11 presented. It is stated that the overall program has
public support and that the incineration plan which is proposed will avoid
the adverse effects of dumping wet sludge. Information about the program
is said to be well disseminated, both to local government officials and
to the public. However, the position taken in the Assessment is that "...
the final decision on which process sequence is to be built..." must be
left to expert opinion.
79
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW
"Environmental Assessment Statement for Disposal
Facilities To Serve the Inc. Village of Freeport"
Prepared for Department of Public Works, County of
Nassau, New York
Prepared by Charles R. Velzey Associates., Inc.
Consulting Engineers
The project discussed in the Assessment is the extension of interceptor
sewer service to Freeport and the construction of a new pumping station
in order to permit discharge of the City's wastewater into the disposal
facilities of the Nassau County Disposal District No. 3. This sewer ex-
tension is proposed in lieu of replacement of Freeport's existing waste-
water treatment plant which is to be abandoned.
This Assessment is dated June 1973 and should theoretically reflect the
guidance provided in EPA's Interim Regulation for the Preparation of En-
vironmental Impact Statements (which includes instructions for assessment
preparation) which was issued January 1973. In this respect the document
is deficient in that several topical areas specified in the EPA Regulation
(e.g., Relationship between local short-term uses of man's enviornment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; a discussion of
problems and objections raised by other Federal, state and local agencies
and by interested persons in this review process) are not specifically ad-
dressed. However, it is not known whether the County had a copy of the
Regulation available at the time the Assessment was prepared.
The consideration of individual alternatives is well presented.
Specific Comments
The main text is proceeded by an Introduction which provides a history of
events leading to the formulation of the proposed project plan. An analy-
sis of individual sections of the Assessment follows:
Section 1, "Description of the Proposed Action", explains why_ the action
is required and discusses the proposed project as a recommended alterna-
tive selected from a group of considered alternatives. A tabulated sum-
mary of estimated construction costs of these alternatives appears (though
out of place) in this Section.
Section 2, "Project Area", provides an adequate description of the incor-
porated Village of Freeport and the Sewage Disposal District No. 3. It
does not discuss the polluted condition of Hempstead Bay which is a key
80
-------
factor in the selection of the proposed project plan. At the end of the
Assessment, however, are summaries of various study reports which cover
this subject.
Section 3, "General Description of Alternatives", lists the various alterna-
tive approaches considered, including the "no action" alternative and the
recommended plan. (These alternatives are discussed in Section 4.)
Section 4, "Detailed Description and Environmental Assessment of Alterna-
tives", provides a much better than average presentation in which each
alternative plan is analyzed in terms of its prospective effects on such
environmental factors as ground water, biota, air quality, stream flow and
many other biological and physical parameters. Secondary environmental
effects are also identified and considered. Temporary local impacts due
to construction are briefly addressed. The environmental assessment of
each alternative is preceded by a description and cost estimate. As in
Section 3, both the "no action" and the recommended alternative are treated.
(Technically, the prospective environmental impact of the proposed action
should have been discussed in a separate Section preceding that presenting
the other alternatives.) The outstanding shortcoming of this Section is
its failure to explain why the proposed alternative was considered prefer-
able to all the others, although it is obvious why certain ones were re-
jected.
The Assessment, as stated, does not consider the relationship between local
short-term uses of man's enviornment and the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity, or any irreversible and irretrievable commit-
ments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should
it be implemented. In addition, the Assessment contains no account of any
public meetings or other input which can be attributed to public partici-
pation.
It is noted that the Letter of Transmittal from Charles R. Velzy Associates,
Inc. (who prepared the Assessment) to the Commissioner of Public Works con-
tains the comment that "...the assessment statement adheres to the require-
ments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969". This comment is
incorrect on two counts:
a. NEPA requires Environmental Statements from Federal agencies
only. Any stipulation that an environmental assessment, re-
port or other analysis must be prepared by an applicant stems
only from the specific Agency (to which the application is
made) and is an administrative or regulatory requirement.
b. Assuming (a) above were not the case, the Assessment would
not "adhere" to NEPA requirements because it lacks various
NEPA dictated inclusions (see preceding discussions).
81
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVIEW
"Environmental Impact Statement on Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Construction Grants for
Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York"
Draft and Final Version
Prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
General Comments
This Statement discusses several wastewater treatment facility construction
projects in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York. As of the date of issu-
ance of the Final Statement (July 1972), five grants had "recently" been
awarded in each County and the ten projects were in the construction stage.
As of the date of the Draft Statement (December 1971), seven grant offers
had been made and three facilities were under construction. Np_ individual
Statement had been previously issued for any one of these projects. (The
major differences between the Draft and Final Statements (other than the in-
clusion of commentary and response in the latter) are extensive revisions of
the treatment of alternatives and some expansion of the presentation of con-
clusions and recommendations.)
Specific Comments
The Summary statement at the beginning implies that the projects are under
consideration. It does not make clear that grant offers had already been
made and that some facilities were already under construction (the Summary
is dated May 1972). Also, thephrase " ...should the proposal be implemented..."
is employed when, in fact, many projects had already been initiated. Spe-
cific comments on individual Sections of the EIS follow. (Section numbers
correspond to those in the Final version.)
Section II - "Overview". This preliminary synoptic account identifies the
projects to which the Statement is pertinent, outlines some of the major
prospective environmental impacts of the program and presents a summary
discussion of the alternatives. Although the inclusion of this Section is
somewhat gratuitous (with reference to standard Statement format), it is
helpful and could have been more so had additional consideration been given
to its organization. For example, a general statement which initially iden-
tifies and summarizes the key problem areas with respect to treatment plant
effluents and to ground water recharge and ocean, bay and Long Island Sound
outfall would have provided some perspective in advance of the subsequent
discussions.
Section III, "Description of the Pertinent Projects", indicates the status
of each facility and provides brief technical summaries.
82
-------
Section IV, "Background", is, on the whole,satisfactory. It covers several
pertinent areas, including geography, demographic trends, land use, identi-
fication of polluting industrial sources, past and present water pollution
control programs, State and local water resources planning and management
agencies and local water (surface and subsurface) resources and their
qualities, local biotic populations and recreational activities.
Section V, "Environmental Impact of the Project", organizes the discussion
of prospective environmental effects of the various programs on a categori-
cal basis as follows: sewering, treatment plants, ocean outfall and dis-
charge of the treated effluents. (The distinction between the last two
categories is minor in principle, since the effluents are, for the most
part, to be discharged either into the ocean directly or into the waters
of Long Island Sound. Much of the discussion under "ocean outfall" treats
the effects of constructing an 84 inch sewer pipe from the Wantagh sewage
plant to an ocean discharge point about 2.5 miles off Jones Beach.) At the
beginning of this Section there is an introductory statement to the effect
that impacts of the various categories of construction activity identified
above tend to be similar and, accordingly, it is implied that these can be
satisfactorily treated generically. Further, it is stated that "... following
this general discussion there will be comments pertaining to specific pro-
jects."
Although specific comments do appear, they are rarely directed to the analy-
sis of particular impacts that (within a particular category of activity)
may differ from one project to another.
A more serious shortcoming of this Section is its complete failure to treat
the prospective secondary socio-economic effects of the different projects.
Even quite obvious considerations such as impacts on taxes, land values,
growth trends and employment during the construction of the facilities are
not mentioned at all. Aside from the fact that Statement content should
include an assessment of secondary effects, there is also the possibility
that in some instances these impacts could vary from one project to another
even more than effects on the natural environment. The compatability of
this possibility with generic treatment should have been examined in the
Statement.
Section VI, "Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided", discusses three cate-
gories of effects (though not systematically) as follows: those certain to
occur; those which might be severe, but may be minimized;and those which
are not independent of future decisions (such as sludge disposal at sea
which may prove unacceptable or ground water level decline which might be
offset in the future as recharge technologies are developed).
83
-------
Section VII, "Alternatives to the Projects", discusses a variety of techni-
cal approaches to Long Island's wastewater problems. Much of the discussion
is addressed to the explanation of why, at this time, ground water recharge
is not feasible, although it is made clear that its desirability is in no
way in question. The "no action" alternative is considered as well as cer-
tain "non-structural" approaches submitted to EPA for consideration, (These
approaches are, in effect, regulatory devices for restricting water use and
do not meet objectives.) This Section considers the physical and chemical
implications of the implementation (as opposed to "non-structural") alterna-
tives in reasonable detail and also provides cost comparisons for economic
assessment of some of the specific alternative techniques presented. The
Final Statement version of this Section was augmented (with respect to the
Draft version) in response to comments and suggestions. As is true of the
other Sections reviewed, however, prospective or possible secondary socio-
economic effects of the considered alternatives are not presented.
Section VIII, "Local Short-Term Uses of or Effects on the Environment Which
Are Associated with the Long-Term Benefits to be Derived from the Proposed
Projects", is an excellent presentation. It consists of a listing of the
various long-term benefits expected to result from implementation of the
projects with particular reference to anticipated improvement in local water
supply quality resulting from reduced groundwater pollution. This Section
also contains a table which identifies short-term adverse environmental
effects of the different project categories (e.g., sewering, outfall, etc.)
Section IX, "Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which
Would be Involved in the Implementation of the Proposed Projects", address
this topic in a satisfactory manner. It also touches on the question of
secondary effects through the statement that "regionalization of sewage
treatment will encourage increases of industrialization and population den-
sity in areas which are already considered fully developed, unless adequate
measures are taken." It is not explained, however, how such "increases"
would necessarily involve irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments.
Section X is a presentation of "...problems and objections raised by all re-
viewers". The volume of commentary received was too great to permit indi-
vidual responses. Instead, the comments were treated categorically. It
is stated that "comments and questions resulting from the public hearing
on January 3, 1972 have been treated in this Section as well as in the
text ... We believe this format will satisfy the requirements of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969." It is interesting to note that
this is the first point in the text (page 194) at which the public hearing
is mentioned. This Section contains a Table which indentifies both the
major areas of concern and the identity of the commentators with respect
to each. K
84
-------
Appendix I presents the petition of the Environmental Defense Fund (dated
June 1971} addressed to the Office of Water Quality, EPA requesting that
the Office prepare:
a. An Environmental Impact Statement covering wastewater facility
construction grants (in Nassau and Suffolk Counties) and,
b. An EIS "...setting forth the long-range assumptions and policies
that govern the disbursement of Federal funds for construction
of sewage treatment facilities in these two counties."
The degree to which the Statement is responsive to (b) above is embodied in
the Conclusions and Recommendations Section. The policy-like conclusions
state, in effect, that (a) the construction and operation of wastewater
treatment systems "are essential to the protection of Long Island's water
supply," (b) water resource planning and management programs (for Long
Island) must be implemented (to assure proper utilization of water resources),
and (c) a combination of ground water recharge and ocean outfall effluent
disposal is the preferred approach. There is no responsiveness to the re-
quest for individual facility Statements.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW
"Final Environmental Impact Statement, East
Bay Utility District, Special District No. 1,
Water Pollution Control Improvements."
(April 1972)
Prepared for: East Bay Municipal Utility District
Prepared by: Consoer, Townsend & Associates, Consulting Engineers
General Comments
This Assessment discusses a proposed expansion and upgrading of wastewater
treatment facilities in Oakland, California. The document, incorrectly, en-
titled "Environmental Impact Statement" rather than "Assessment", is by far
the best of those examined in the course of this study. The format is, on
the whole, though not in all respects, reasonably consistent with applicable
EPA guidelines. The expository contents are, for the most part, well organ-
ized and in all instances clearly presented. Unlike most of the other en-
vironmental analyses of wastewater treatment facility projects reviewed,
this assessment does consider secondary effects (such as growth) of the pro-
posed facility in addition to immediate impacts on the natural environment.
85
-------
Specific Comments
Analyses of individual Sections follow.
Section I, "Description of the Project", presents a summary of the exist-
ing facilities together with a brief account of their current operating
problems. The proposed facilities are adequately presented, but it is not
made clear that the project is to provide expansion and upgrading of the
present installation as opposed to its total replacement. This Section also
includes a demographic analysis of Special District No. 1 (which is to be
served by the new facility) showing the population growth trends that were
used for planning purposes.
Section II, "Probable Impact of the Project on the Environment", is unusu-
ally well organized. It first systematically treats the effects of con-
struction with respect to specific environmental impacts on water, air and
land as well as to such factors as noise, public safety and others. Then,
under the heading of "Long Term Impact", the effects of facility operation
are individually considered. The last sub-section, "Secondary Impact", in-
cludes brief discussions of "Compatability with Growth and Land Use" and
"Undeveloped Areas". The latter makes the important point (in relation to
secondary socio-economic effects) that "this project will not result in
sewering any undeveloped areas". The sub-section also contains a brief
paragraph entitled "Public Controversy" stating that there was no contro-
versy, that the voters authorized a bond issue and that "no objections were
made at the public hearing prior to adoption of the Interim Basin Plan,
which included this project." Although this paragraph may be considered
(from a puristic viewpoint) out of place, its inclusion in the assessment
is refreshing in itself.
Section III, "Probable Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided", discusses
the expected consumption of raw materials for both construction and opera-
tion. This topic would more appropriately have been addressed in the Sec-
tion on "Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of Resources." Other
sub-sections deal with the unavoidable impacts of plant effluents (liquid
ash and stack gases) and "Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the Im-
pact". Although other environmental analyses reviewed did, on occasion,
mention proposed mitigation measures, this document is the only one which
specifically addressed this topic as a separately identified area.
Section V, "Alternatives to the Proposed Project", examines various treat-
ment, disposal and other options, including those selected for the proposed
project. These are discussed in terms of both efficiency and environmental
impacts, but not in terms of cost comparisons. The "no action" alternative
was briefly discussed. The position taken in the assessment was that this
86
-------
alternative could not be considered "because to do so would result in vio-
lation of a compliance schedule to upgrade treatment levels, which has
been imposed on East Bay Municipal Utility District by the State of Cali-
fornia". Actually, the "no action alternative" is considered to the de-
gree that it is rejected on the grounds that it "would not enhance the re-
ceiving water quality and would entail legal problems (because "no action"
would violate a compliance schedule to upgrade treatment, impact on East
Bay MUD by the State). The preferred sludge treatment method is incinera-
tion. The manner of ash disposal is left open, though various approaches
are considered.
Section VI, "Short-Term versus Long-Term Productivity", presents the latter
as deriving from prospective improvement of the aquatic environment and
from the fact that the plant will have potential use as a water reclamation
facility. The question of short-term uses is not addressed.
Section VII, "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources",
references (categorically) the prospective consumption of building mate-
rials, energy and chemicals. This subject was already treated in Section
III.
Section VIII, "Secondary Impact of Population Growth", projects 1995 sew-
age flow as a function of anticipated population increase. It would seem
that this "impact" is direct rather than "secondary". The purpose of
this Section is, apparently, to provide a basis for the designed secon-
dary treatment capacity of the proposed project - 120 MGD (average).
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL
Note
This Appraisal, prepared by EPA Region IX, was generated in response to
the application of East Bay Utility District, Special District One for
construction grant support for a wastewater treatment plant to serve this
District (No. 1). The Appraisal is accompanied by a transmittal letter
stating that the project impact will not be significant and that, accord-
ingly, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. (This let-
ter is a Negative Declaration.)
General Comments
This document summarizes most of the information contained in the Environ-
mental Assessment prepared for the same project for the East Bay Utility
87
-------
District by Consoer, Townsend and Associates. It also includes some in-
formation which does not appear in the Assessment. The Appraisal is clear
and well organized and, in terms of format, approximates a "mini" EIS.
Specific Comments
Section 1, "Brief Description of Project" provides a clear presentation
of the project and identifies the population to be served.
Sections 2 and 3 present clear and concise reviews of the project and its
prospective environmental impacts, both favorable and unfavorable. The
latter reflect, almost entirely, the effects of construction. (The ef-
fects of operation are expected to be, on overall balance, predominately
beneficial.) Section 4, "Alternatives Considered with Evaluation of Each",
does not identify the various treatment processes discussed in the Assess-
ment, but merely states that considered alternatives, on pilot testing,
were found inferior to the proposed method.
Section 5, "Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity", does not address
this question explicitly. It mentions capital investment, future potential
for water reclamation and the fact that the treatment plant "will provide
a facility which will enable the district to meet the wastewater discharge
requirements..." The short-term/long-term relationship would have been
better presented by weighing the long-term benefits of the project (i.e.,
improvement in receiving water quality against the temporary environmental
costs associated with the effects of construction).
Section 6, "Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources",
begins with a straightforward (and conventional) reference to labor and
materials that would be committed and then qualifies this by stating that
while the commitment "is not of itself irreversible, or totally irretriev-
able, it is not likely that the plant location would be changed following
this much refurbishment." (The position expressed here is technically
correct; in general, materials used in construction programs can be regarded
as committed, at least for the life of the project. The possibility of sub-
sequent reuse or salvage of these materials is usually poor to fair; the
likelihood of reuse of land is often good.)
Section 7, "Public Objections to the Protest and Their Resolution", men-
tions a suit filed against the District on the grounds that the District's
water treatment program should be reclamation rather than disposal oriented.
(This suit is not referenced in the earlier Assessment; however, the date
of initiation is not provided and it could have been subsequent to the date
of Assessment issuance.) The Appraisal takes the position that the proposed
-------
project "... is necessary to meet discharge requirements..." and that the
2MGD water reclamation facility incorporated within the project to supply
treatment water will serve as a test means for advanced treatment pro-
cesses of the future. The balance of this Section briefly considers the
"no-action" and other alternatives, none of which are directly germane
to the subject addressed.
The Appraisal ends with "Conclusion" which implies, though it does not
explicitly state, that (a) the adverse effects of the project will not
be significant,and (b) these effects will be outweighed by the benefit
to accrue, i.e., the improvement of San Francisco Bay Water Quality through
improvement of effluent quality. The transmittal letter containing the
Negative Declaration states that the "...environmental impact appraisal ...
summarizes... the reasons why a statement is not required." This is not
quite accurate. The Conclusion of the Appraisal summarizes the effects,
but does not include a comprehensive evaluation of these by EPA indicating
its judgment that, in aggregate, these effects are not "significant". Al-
though this may appear to be a technicality, under NEPA requirements a
Statement is required unless it is demonstrated that the prospective en-
vironmental effects are not expected to be "significant". This judgment
should be made explicit in the appraisal which is publicly issued as the
basis for the "Negative Declaration".
89
-------
APPENDIX D
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D. C 20242
COM 3200'1
ORDER October 15, 1970
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment of FWQA Actions
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this order and appendices is
to set forth procedures for FWQA compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91-190,
relating to: (a) assurance that Federal agency actions
have a minimum adverse impact on the environment, and
(b) preparation and review of Environmental Statements on
Federal agency actions.
2. BACKGROUND. The National Environmental Policy Act
and Executive Order 11514 on protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality require each Federal agency to submit,
a statement to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
on any Federal or federally assisted project which has or
would have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment.
3. GENERAL.
a. Interpretation of Requirement for_ Environmenta1
Statements. As the very nature of FWQA programs is
concerned with water quality protection and enhancement,
FWQA should view the specific requirement for filing
Environmental Statements with the Council on Environmental
Quality as applying to the impact of its actions designed
to improve water quality on components of the environ-
ment other than water. As defined by the Interim
Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality on
preparing and reviewing Environmental Statements,
Appendix A, significant environmental effects which
shouldxbe analyzed in Environmental Slut >ments include
those which degrade the qualify of the environment,
curtail the range of beneficial uses of the environment,
or serve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
goals. They also include actions which may have both
beneficial and detrimental effects even if it is felt
that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Example:
interference with recreational uses of an area and
Distribution: A; B; C; F; G; II; j Attachments
90
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
disturbance of scenic or historical sites resulting from
construction of waste treatment facilities through FWQA
grant programs or because of recommendations of FWQA
technical or planning studies. Every effort must be
exerted to avoid or resolve these problems, but where
some unavoidable adverse environmental impact will result
from FWQA activities, an Environmental Statement must be
submitted to CEQ.
b. FWQA Actions to Which Environmental statement
Requirement Aj?_p_l_ies. Based on the CEQ Interim Guidelines,
FWQA is required to submit Environmental Statements on
certain actions in the following areas:
(1) Direct FWQA construction of facilities;
(2) Waste treatment works construction grants;
(3) Research and development grants and contracts
involving construction of facilities or any other action
potentially disruptive of the environment;
(4) Completed plans and any implementation actions
Of FWQA-assisted river basin planning agencies under the
planning grants program;
(5) Final recommendations of reports on technical
studies and basin plans; and
(6) Policies, regulations, and legislative
proposals generated by FWQA.
FWQA regulatory actions are excluded from the requirement
to submit Environmental Statements by the CEQ guidelines.
This does not reduce the obligation to assure that water
quality standards and enforcement recommendations are
developed with the same concern for environmental factors
as othe^r FWQA programs, but submission of a formal
Statement to CEQ is not required in these instances.
c. The Need for Environmental Assessments ojf FWQA
Activities. Environmental assessments are necessary tot
PAR 3
91
-------
October 15, 1970 <*>M
(1) Assure that FWQA programs consider fully the
effects of their actions or proposals on other components
of the environment.
(2) Assure that FWQA programs conduct their
activities in such a way as to avoid or minimize those
adverse environmental impacts.
(3) Determine when a formal Environmental
Statement will be necessary. The Environmental Statement
is to be prepared only on those projects where it has been
determined, based on the environmental assessment, that
a significant or controversial adverse environmental
impact on the environment, which*cknnot be avoided, will
result from an FWQA-conducted or supported activity.
d. Usefulness of Requirement, The need to conduct
environmental assessments of FWQA actions in order to
determine whether such actions will have an adverse impact
on the environment, and the requirement to submit an
Environmental Statement on any action which would have a
major or controversial impact on the environment, provide
FWQA with an excellent opportunity to strengthen its
programs and coordinate its actions with other Federal,
State, and local agencies. The requirement for preparation
and review oi: a formal statement provides a very useful
tool for self-evaluation and program direction. FWQA
should take full advantage of this mechanism.
4* RESPONSIBILITIES.
a. Regional Directors. Regional Directors have
the major responsibility for assuring that adverse
environmental impacts are avoided or minimized; and for
assuring the adequacy of the Environmental Statements
in the areas of construction grants, research and develop-
ment grants and contracts, basin planning grants, FWQA
technical studies and basin planning reports, subject to
normal Headquarters review channels.
b. Assistant CommissionQr forAdministration and
Assistant Commissioner for Program Area. The Assistant
Commissioner for Administration has joint responsibility
PAR 3
92
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
with the Assistant commissioner(s) whose programs will use
the facility, for minimizing adverse environmental impacts
and preparing Environmental Statements on FWQA laboratory,
pilot plant, or other facility construction.
c. Assistant Commissioner for Environmental and
Program Planning. The Assistant commissioner for
Environmental and Program Planning assures that all FWQA
policies, regulations, and legislative proposals are
developed so as to avoid or minimize any adverse
environmental effects; prepares or reviews any Environ-
mental Statements that are necessary on these proposals.
Other procedures and responsibilities relating to develop-
ment of Environmental Statements on legislative proposals,
regulations, or policy proposals are given in subpar. 5d.
d. Assistant Commissioners for Program Areas. Each
Assistant Commissioner is responsible for providing
guidance on conducting environmental assessments of the
programs under his purview, and on preparing formal
Environmental Statements on proposed program actions which
may have a significant environmental impact. Each
Assistant Commissioner is also responsible for evaluating
the effectiveness of compliance with this order by the
programs under his purview.
5. PROCEDURES.
a. General Requirements.
(1) All Environmental Statements must be
transmitted formally by the commissioner to the Office of
the Secretary, for subsequent transmittal to the council
on Environmental Quality. Statements will be submitted to
the Commissioner in accordance with regular program
clearance channels (e.g., Environmental Statements on
construction grants through the construction Grants and
Engineering Branch, Office of Operations). For national
policy, regulations, and legislative proposals, any
necessary Environmental Statements will be transmitted
to the commissioner through the Assistant Commissioner
for Environmental and Program Planning.
PAR 4
93
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
(2) Headquarters overview of this activity will
be maintained along the lines of the July 7 Memorandum
on "Coordination with the Council on Environmental
Quality", Appendix B. That is, development of overall
procedures and responsibility for assessing the adequacy
of these procedures rests with the Assistant commissioner
for Environmental and Program Planning. Evaluation of
the performance of individual programs in implementing
these requirements is the responsibility of the
Assistant Commissioner in whose area the program functions,
The first of each month, the Regional Directors are
directed to provide a list, by name, of all Environmental
Statements prepared or under preparation for each program
area to the Assistant Commissioner* concerned.
b. Effective Date. These procedures become effective
for all pending and new actions immediately in accordance
with the detailed guidance in each appendix. In addition,
the FWQA programs subject to the Environmental Statement
requirements should be reviewed as soon as possible to
determine what projects or activities initiated since
January 1, 1970, might have a significant environmental
impact, arid preparation of any necessary Statements on
such actions should be expedited.
c. Specific Procedures for FWQA Programs. Appendixes
C through H are procedures for developing, reviewing, and
transmitting Environmental Statements in each of the
following areas:
(1) Appendix C. Construction Grants;
(2) Appendix D. Research, Development, and
Demonstration Grants and Contracts;
(3) Appendix E. Basin Planning Grants;
(4) Appendix F. FWQA Basin Planning;
(5) Appendix G. FWQA Technical Studies; and
(6) Appendix H. FWQA Facility Construction.
94 PAR 5
-------
COM 32(iM,i October 15, 1970
d. Specific Procedures for FWQA Regulations, Policy,
and Legislative Proposals. In the development of proposed
policies, regulations, or legislative proposals, an
assessment of the environmental impact must be made at
an early stage through contacts with other environmental
agencies as appropriate. If such a proposal would have
an unavoidable adverse impact on the environment, a draft
Environmental Statement must be prepared and submitted
for review by other environmental agencies in accordance
with Section 8 of the CEQ Interim Guidelines. Primary
responsibility for carrying out the environmental
assessment and, if necessary, preparing the Statement
related to an existing FWQA program rests with the
office carrying out the program. Responsibility for
carrying out the environmental assessment and, if
necessary, preparing a Statement en new programs not
closely related to an existing FWQA office, rests jointly
with the office originating the proposal and the Office of
Environmental and Program Planning.
e. Procedures for Review of FWQA Environmental
Statements by Other Agencies.
(1) Mechanisms. The CEQ Interim Guidelines
stress the need to assure adequate review of projects and
Environmental Statements by all concerned citizens and
agencies. Existing mechanisms for doing this are to be
used, where possible, and local public hearings on
significant or controversial issues are encouraged. On
certain controversial issues, the views of State
environmental agencies, in addition to the water pollution
control officials, may be needed. Specific procedures for
review are included in the program area Appendixes C-H.
(2) Federal Agencies. 'The regional office should
determine what Federal environmental agencies should be
consulted on a case-by-case basis in accordance with
Sectioq 8 of the CEQ Interim Guidelines. If the initial
environmental assessment indicates that an adverse
environmental impact would be involved and therefore
preparation of an Environmental Statement is necessary,
in compliance with Section 8 of the Guidelines, agencies
shall be given at, least 30 days to review the draft
PAR 5
95
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200-1
Environmental Statement. This should be timed to the
regional review of project applications or reports. In
accordance with detailed procedures at Appendixes C-H,
copies of the draft Environmental Statements will be
provided to the Council on Environmental Quality at the
following address: 722 Jackson Place, N. W. ,
Washington, D. C. 20006.
(3) Furnish Background Information. Each agency
asked to review a draft Environmental Statement will be
given sufficient background information on the area of
its concern. Ideally, the draft Environmental statement
should be sufficiently complete that additional documen-
tation is not required. However,, the request for review
should indicate what office of FWQA can supply additional
information to the reviewer, if needed.
f. Work Planning. In terms of work planning, the
requirements for conducting an environmental, assessment
and developing Environmental Statements are to be con-
sidered a regular part of effective administration of the
programs discussed in Appendixes C-H. These tasks should
be phased into the normal operation and timing of programs
as much as possible, and thus, although they may add
significantly to the workload, would not constitute
separate work plan items.
David D. Dominic!;
Commissioner
96
PAR 5
-------
Ootober.15, 1970
NOTICES
COM 3200.1
VOLUME 35
Tuesday, May 12, 1970
NUMBKR92
Washington, D.C.
Appendix
<%
COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATEMENTS ON PROPOSED FEDERAL
ACTIONS AFFECTING THE ENVI-
RONMENT
Interim Guidelines
Arm 30. 1070.
1. Pttrpnfr. This memorandum pro-
vides interim Ruidellnes to Federal de-
partments, agenclM and establishments
Interim Guidelines
-------
COM :.'O.JL
for preparing detailed environmental
statements on proposals (or legislation
and other major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the hu-
man environment, a* required by section
102(2) of the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act (Public Law 81-190)
(hereafter "the Act"). Underlying the
preparation of such environmental state-
ments Is the mandate of both the Act and
Executive Order 115H (35 F.R. 4247 1 of
March 5. 1070. that all Federal agencies,
to the fullest extent possible, direct
their policies, plans and program* so as
to meet national environmental goals.
>. Policy. Before undertaking major
action or recommending or making a
favorable report on legislation that
significantly affects the environment.
Federal agencies will. In consultation
with other appropriate Federal. State,
and local agencies, assess In detail the
potential environmental impact in order
that adverse affects are avoided, and
environmental quality is restored or en-
hanced, to the fullest extent practicable.
In particular, alternative actions that
will minimize adverse impact should be
explored and both the long- and short*
ranee implications to man. his physical
and social surroundings, and to nature.
should be evaluated In order to avoid to
the fullest extent practicable undesir-
able consequences for the environment,
S. Aoenet «* of Executive
Order 11514. the heads of Federal agen-
cies have been directed to proceed with
measures required by section 103(2) (Ct
of the Act. Consequently, each agency
wfll establish no later than June 1, 1070,
it* own formal procedures for ( 1) Identi-
fying those agency actions requiring
environmental statements, <2> obtaining
information required In their prepare*
tton. <3> designating the officials who
are to be responsible for the statements.
(4)' consulting with and taking account
of the comments of appropriate Federal.
State ami local agencies, and of
Executive Order 11514 for providing
timely public information on Federal
plank and programs with environmental
Impact. These procedures siwuld be con-
sonant with the guidelines contained
herein. Each agency should file seven <7>
copies of all such. procedures with the
Council on Environmental Quality, which
will provide advice to agencies In the
preparation of their procedures and
guidance on the application and Inter-
pretation of the Council's guidelines.
Each Federal agency should con-
sult. with the assistance of the Council
on Environmental Quality if desired,
with other appropriate Federal agencies
In the otardopmtiit of the above pro-
cedures so as to achieve consistency In
dealing with similar activities and to
assure effective coordination among
arcnclcs In their review of pioimsed
crtivilies.
Octoi
ib,
7.191
•e> It Is ImiHnillVF that
mechanisms for oblainlni; tlie views of
Federal. State, and tornl agencies on
proposed Federal actions be utilized lo
the extent practicable in dealing with
environmental matters. The Bureau of
the Budget will Issue Instructions, as
necessary, to take full advantage of
existing mechanisms (relating to pro-
cedures for handling legislation, prepara-
tion of budgetary material, new policies
and procedures, water resource and other
projects, etc.).
4. Federal agencies included. Section
102<2HC> applies to all agencies of the
Federal Government with respect to
recommendations or reports on proposals
for legislation and (ID other major
Federal actions significantly affcctlnar
the quality of tlte human environment.
The phrase "to the fullest extent pos-
sible" in section 102(2) (C) Is meant to
make clear that each agency of tlie Fed-
eral Government shall comply with the
requirement unless existing law applica-
ble to Uie agency's operations expressly
prohibits or makes compliance impos-
sible. (Section 106 of the Act provides
that "The policies and goals set forth
in this Act are supplementary to those
set forth In existing authorisations of
Federal acencies.")
5. Actions included. The following cri-
teria will be employee b> agencies In
deciding whether a proposed action re-
quires the preparation of an environ-
mental statement:
(a) -Actions" include but are not
limited to:
d) Recommendations or reports re-
lating to legislation and appropriations;
(u> Projects and continuing activities;
—Directly undertaken by Federal
agencies:
—Supported In whole or In part
through Federal contracts, grants,
subsidies, loans, or other forms of
funding assistance:
—Involving a Federal lease, permit.
license, certificate or other en-
titlement for use:
(ili) Policy—and procedure-making.
ib) The statutory clause "major Fed-
eral actions significantly affecting the
quality of the liuinrm environment" Is to
be construed by agencies with a view
to the overall, cumulative impact of the
action proiwsed (and of further actions
contemplatedi. Such actions may be lo-
calized In their impact, but if there is po-
tential that the environment may be
significantly affected, the statement Is
to be prepared. Proiwsed actions Die
environmental Impact of which is likely
lo be highly controversial should be
covered In all cases. In considering what
constitutes major action significantly af-
fecting the environment, acencies should
bear In mind that the effect of muny
Federal decisions about a project or com-
plex of projects can be individually
limited but cumulatively considerable.
Tliis cnn occur when one or more agen-
cies over a period of years puts Julo a
project individually minor but collec-
tivrly tnnjur resources, when one«lerislon
tMVolvliiK a limited amount, of money is
a precedenl for nctiun in much latter
ca Section 10Kb) of the Act indi-
cates the broad ranee of aspects of the
environment to be surveyed In any as-
sessment of significant effect. The Act
also indicates that adverse significant
effects include those that degrade the
quality of the environment, curtail the
range of beneficial uses of the environ-
ment or serve short-term, to the disad-
vantage of long-term, environmental
goals. Significant effects can also Include
actions which may have both beneficial
and detrimental effects, even If, on bal-
ance, the agency believes that the effect
will be beneficial. Significant adverse
effects on the quality of the- humnn
environment include both those that
directly affect human beings and
those that Indirectly affect human
beings through adverse effects on the
environment.
(d) Because of the Act's legislative
history, the regulatory activities of Fed-
eral environmental protection agencies
(e-g.. the Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration of the Department of the In-
terior and the National Air Pollution
Control Administration of the Depart-
ment of Health. Education, and Welfare)
are not deemed actions which require the
preparation of an environmental state-
ment under section 103(3) (C) of the Act.
0. Recommendation! or reports on
proposal* tar legislation. The requ'-
menfc for following the section 102 < 2
procedure as elaborated in these g>
lines applies to both (I) agency reco—
mendatlons on their own proposals for
legislation and (ID wrency reports on
legislation initiated elsewhere. (In the
latter case only the agency which has
primary responsibility for the subject
matter Involved will prepare nn environ-
mental statement.) The Bureau of the
Budget will supplement these general
guidelines with specific Instructions rr-
InllnR to the way In which the section
102OKC) procedure fits Into Its legisla-
tive clearance process.
7. Content of environmental state-
ment, (a) Tlie following points are to be
covered:
(I) The probable Impact of the pro-
action on the environment. In-
cluding impact on ecological systems
such as wild life, fish and marine life.
'Both primary and secondary significant
consequences for the environment
should be included In the analysis. For
example, the Implications, if anv. of the
action for population distribution or con-
centration should be estimated and an
assessment mode of the effect of any
possible chance in population pattern*
uix>n tlie resource base. Including Innrt
me. water, and public services, of the
«reu In question.
(li> Anv probable adverse environ-
mental effects which cannot be avoided
(such as water or air ixillutlon. damnce
to life systems, urban eonircstlon. tr
lo health or other consequences a
to the environmental goals set o
section 101 (b) of Public Law 91-190).
-------
October IS, 1970
COM 3200.1
Alternatives to the proposed ac-
i,v.t (section 102(2) iD> of the Act re-
quire* the responsible aKency to "study,
develop and describe appropriate alter-
natives to recommended courses of ac-
tion In any proposal which Involves
unresolved conflict* concerning alterna-
tive uses 'of available resources"). A
rigorous exploration and objective eval-
uation of alternative actions Dial mmlit
avoid some or all o( the adverse environ-
mental effects Is essential. Sufficient
analysis of such alternatives and their
cost* and impact on Die environment
should accompany the proposed action
through the agency review process In
order not to foreclose prematurely op-
tions which might have less detrimental
effects,
(Iv) The relationship between local
short-term uses of man's environment
and the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity. This In es-
sence requires the »i:cncy to assess the
action for cumulative and lone-term
effects from the perspective that each
generation Is trustee of the environment
for 'succeeding Reiterations.
(v) Any Irreversible and Irretrievable
commitments of resources which would
be Involved in the proposed action should
It be implemented. This requires the
agency to identify the extent to which
Uw action curtails the range of bene-
ficial uses of the environment.
" •!) Where appropriate, a. discussion
roblems and objections raised hy
t Federal aeencles nnd State and
local entitles in the review process and
the disposition of the Issues involved.
(This section may be added at the end
Ot the review process In the final text of
the environmental statement >
(b) With respect to water quality as-
pects of the proposed action which havo
been previously certified by the appro-
priate State or interstate on:nniznl.lon us
being- In substantial complicities with
applicable water quality s.aiulanls, mere
reference to the previous certification Is
sufficient.
(c> Each cnvhnitmciital .-.Uilement
should be prepared in accordance with
the precept In section 102(2) 'A) of the
Act that all agencies of the Federal t?ov-
ernmcnt "utilize a systematic, inter-
disciplinary approach which will insure
the integrated use of the natural and
social sciences and the environmental
design arts In plnnnim,' mid decision
making which may have an impact on
man's environment." .
•. Fedrral agrnrics 7r) b? riinsultetl in
eonnrrttnn with t>reimratu>n n! environ-
mental statftiirnt. The Federal acrncics
to be consulted in connection with prepa-
ration of environmental f-tiileinenli
•I* those which have ''jurisdiction by
law or special rxpcillsc will) rcMii'd to
any rilviidtiinriiliil iinjKtct Involve d" or
"which me niiiluin/cil tn develop mul
••"forifrnYjnmmrni.il .simulants". Th«i«
"in I ap.i'iino1. iiu-liiik' cciiniHiiii'iit.s of
ending on ihc nxpwt or nupitUi of
. rnvlxuiinnii involved1 :
nrpart ninn of Ai;rk-iilliira.
tVjut i mnu uf OMitmi'trc.
lVp«lmrm at Orlriu*.
NOTICES
Department of Ifevltli, Education, unit
Welfare.
Doparlmrut nf Housing nntl Orb»n Develop-
ment..
Department ot th« Interior.
Department of Transport. nlon,
Atomic Energy Commission.
For actions specially aftectlni? the en-
vironment of their regional Jurisdictions,
the following Federal agencies -are also
to be consulted:
V«Hey Authority.
Appalachian Regional Commission
Agencies obtaining comment should de-
termine- which line or more of the above
lifted nRrnclcs rue appropriate to consult.
U is recommended lhal the above listed
Departments establish contact points for
providing comments and that Depart-
ments from which comment Is solicited
coordinate imcl consolidate the comments
of their component entitles. The require-
ment in section 102*2) (O to obtnin com-
ment from FtMernl agencies having
Jurisdiction or special expertise Is In
addition to ni>y specific statutory obliga-
tion of any ?'erleral aucncysU) boorUinauj
or consult with any other Federal ur
Stale agency. Agencies si-eklnt: comment
may establish Him; limits of not less
thnn thirty Unys for reply, aftei which
it may be presumed the agency consulted
has no comment \o make.
9. State and Iwul rcvieto. Where no
public healing has been held on the pro-
ixxsed action at which the appropriate
State nnd local review has been invited,
and whore review of thi; proposed netimi
by Stale nnd locnl fluencies anlhoi l/.t!tl |.»
develop nnrt enforce environmental
standards Is relevant, such State And
local review shall be provided for as
follows:
For direct Federal development
project:; and projects assisted under pro-
Brains listed In Attachment O of the Bu-
reau of thi: Uiidf.el Circular No. A-05,
revii'W by Stule nntl locnl i?nverniJicnls
will be through procedures set forth un-
der f'arl I of Circular No A-!>.r>.
ib) Klalt> and local review nf nr.cncy
procedures. ruiiiilnlions. uii.l policies for
the ndiiiiitl.strnltnii of Federal proerams
of a.sftUtunce to Slatu and local tioverii-
mcnls will b« ooi'diiilfd pursuant U< pro-
cerlures established by Bureau nf the
JbiutRcf ClrcuJar No A-«*.
iri Where Ihosc procedures arc not
npproprlnle nn
rlrvoloo »i«l cnfvucc ciivlrounienlat
Mnntlards and their coinnu-nls on tae
dr;ift cnviroiiiiu-nlal stiitetiunt inny be
obtained directly or hy publication of A
suinmaiy nolicc in ihc I-'ewm*!. RtoisiEn
'with a copy of i-he cnvironiiirnlnl state-
ment and coimiK'Mts of fMrrnl accncips
t.hfii'i>n In be supplied on n-nni-sl 1 The
notice in flu- FentJiAi. UK.r.isrrn may (.puc-
ily i hut. ••iHiiiiH'iil.s of I h« rclev.niit Sliitt-
anil Kiciil iii-.cnrirsi miisl be suhmlllt'd
wiihfn ltd diiys tit iiublJciitlon of tho
notii e.
10 the n/ stdli'infntu in iipuncy rrwrw
firurf.t.tf 5 ; tllstribiitk'n lo Cnuneil nn F.n-
tilninmculttl Vitality Seven (7> copies of draft environ-
mental statements (when prepared),
seven i7> copies of all comments received
thereon iwhen received), and seven <7>
copies of Hie final text of environmental
.stnirnienU .should be supplied to the
Council on Kuvlrcnmentiil Quality In the
KxecuUvc Office of the President 'this
ulll serve its making environmental
itiitcinenl^ available to the President*. It
is important tlmt draft environmental
.statements br> prepared and circulated
/or comment anil fumlshed to tin' Coun-
cil curly enough In the agency review
pn.ress before- an action Is taken in order
to permit meaningful consideration of
the environment id issues Involved.
11. Apulicoffon ol sei-fliw l02i2)
proccdttrc to dinting projects arid pro-
gratnt. To the fullest extent possible the
(section lOai'-'iiCi procedure should be
applied to further major Federal actions
liiiviiiK a ,si(;inlk-nnt effect on the envi-
ronment even IhoiiKh they arise from
projects or Mrocrams Initiated prior to
o/ f.il<»l"(7 authority. i«)/!-
cif.i and prnti-riiiri't in light of National
t'nvirnnmfittal Paltry Ail. Pursuant to
M-rilnn 103 of the Ad and .section 2ul> of
KxpiMH.ivc Order I ISM. utl «uctirit«. as
.toon as possibU1. shull review thrlr pres-
ent Mn'nl/iry aiithoritv, admlnistralive
rcviiJatloiis. ft'nl riHTi'Mt iwllcics nnd
piocediuc.s. Inchidltiu those iflatmK U>
Irnns. K'rniils, fontraci.i. Iriues. license.-",
ceiilflratcs nntl ix;rn»lt.f, for the purpose
of determining whelhrr there are «nr
-------
COM 3200.1
deficiencies or Inconsistencies therein
which prohibit full compliance with the
purposes and provisions of the Act. After
such review each agency shall report to
the Council on Environnieiit.il Quality
not later than September 1.1970. the re-
sults of such review and their proimsals
to bring their authority and policies Into
conformity with the Intent, purposes and
procedures set forth in the Art.
14, Supplementary guidelines; ew'u-
«tfcm of procedures, (at The Council on
Environmental Quality after examining
environmental statements and agency
procedures with resix*cl to such state-
ments will Issue such supplements to
these guidelines as arc necessary.
provisions of the Act and
In conforming wllh these guidelines and
report thereon to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality by December 1. 1970.
8uch reports should Include an identi-
fication of problfm arms and siiucrstlons
for revision or clarification nf these
guidelines to achieve effective coordina-
tion of views on environmental aspects
(and alternatives, where appropriate) of
proposed actions without imixxviug un-
productive administrative procedures.
RtmscLL Er TRAIN.
Chairman.
|FJL Dae. TO 57U9: Filed. Mny II, 1(7(1,
•:4t «.ra.|
NOTICIS
October 15, 1970
739.1
Annond
HP*.
-------
.nrt-ohsr 15, IW
COM 3200.1
•*« P»M» <« crw) Mt-iM
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
COPY -
USOI, Federal Water Quality Administration
TO
See Below
DATE: July 7, 1970
PROU : Commissioner
SUBJECT: Coordination with the Council on Environmental Quality
This agency has major responsibilities relating to the work of the
Council on tnvl ronmental Quality. There Is an Increasing need to
assure that the work of FWQA with th«» Council on bnvl ronmental
Quality and with the Department on matters relating to the CouncM
on Environmental Quality Is fully coordinated.
This memorandum sets forth procedures for assuring such coordination:
I. The Office of Environmental and Program Planning is responsible
for providing overall coordination for the work of FWQA relating to
the Council on Environmental Ouality.
* »
II. All offices of FWQA are responsible for cooperating fully In the
work of the Councl I Insofar as It relates to their program responsibilities,
In coordination with the Office of Environmental and Proqram Planning,
III. The procedures for such coordination era as follows:
A. Development of procedures for agency compliance with requirements
Of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, In cooperation with
the Council on Environmental Quality.
I. The most immediate need Is for procedures to implement
Section 102 of the Act. This will call for FWQA submitting to the
Council environmental statements on certain of Its program activities,
in accordance with guidelines prepared by the Council. In addition,
FWQA must review environmental statements prepared by other Federal
agencies under the same guidelines.
2. Development of overall procedures for meeting these
responsibilities is to be coordinated by the Office of Environmental
and Program Planning in consultation with alt FWQA programs affected.
3. Implementation of the procedures insofar as they relate
to Individual program elements, will be the responsibility of the
individual program of flees.
4. Evaluation of the performance of individual program offices
in Implementing the procedure will be the responsibility of the Assistant
Commissioner responsible for those offices.
Bty U.S. Savings Bonds Rtgularlj tn tit Payrtll Savingt Plan
Appendix B. Memorandum of 7/7/70
re Coordination with CEO
101
-------
COM 3200.1 "' 197°
5. Evaluation of the FWJA response to the reejuIrements of the
Act and Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, with a vie* to
determining overall compliance of the agency with the Intent of the
Act will be tne responsibility of the Office of tnvlronmental and
Program Planning.
B. Participation In work groups and other activities of CEO.
I. It Is necessary that FWQA have coordinated participation
In work groups and other activities of CEO.
2. Coordination of aqencv
-------
COM 3200.1
3. Program officials participating on working groups or other
Significant activities will Keep the Office of Environmental and Program
Planning Informed In order that these reporting responsibilities can
be met.
David I). Oomlnlck
Addressees:
Associate Commissioner
Assistant Commissioners
Executive Assistant to the Commissioner
01 rector of Management
Director of Public Information
Regional Directors
Appendix B.
103
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
TYPE OF ACTION: Waste Treatment Works Construction Grants
FWQA ORGANIZATION: Construction Grants and Engineering
Branch, Division of State and Local
Programs, Office of Operations
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO BE PREPARED BY: Grant appli-
cant, subject to appropriate supplementary comments
by the State water pollution control agency.
GUIDELINES: A paragraph will be added to the "Instructions
for Completing 'Application for Federal Grant for
Sewage Treatment Works under 33 U.S.C. 466 et seq'"re-
garding "Assurance of Compliance with National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969." This will be part
of the information kit which ^potential applicants
receive (copies will be reproduced at Headquarters
for distribution as will the other information mate-
rial noted below). This will be supplemented by a
format sheet, Figure C-l, suggesting an appropriate
outline for the written presentation of the environ-
mental assessment and attaching excerpts from the
CEQ Interim Guidelines, Appendix A, regarding the
kinds of analyses necessary. The applicant will be
asked to provide the written assessment when the
grant application is submitted to the State.
This requirement is effective immediately for all new
grant applications. The region is also to provide for
preparation of environmental assessments by all appli-
cants whose projects are now under Federal review or
whose applications are expected to be forwarded by
the State.
REVIEW GUIDELINES.- These procedures, the Departmental
Procedures on Environmental Quality, 516 DM 1-3, and
the CEQ Interim Guidelines. The requirement for
environmental assessments, the factors which should
be considered in reviewing the assessments, the need
to obtain comments from other environmental agencies
as appropriate, the conditions under which Environ-
mental Statements should be prepared, and the
Appendix C. Construction Grants
104
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
procedures for review and transmittal of Environmental
Statements to the Department and CEQ will be reflected
in modification of the "Handbook of Procedures - Con-
struction Grants Program" (USDI, FWQA, January 1968),
as appropriate.
PROVISION FOR STATE AND LOCAL REVIEW: Local review will be
obtained in accordance with established procedures
under BOB Circular A-95, modified as necessary to
incorporate full environmental review.
State review will be obtained in accordance with
existing procedures, modified as necessary to incor-
porate full environmental review, under the Federal
ftater Pollution Control Act, as amended. The regJLon
will direct the State water pollution control agency
to evaluate the environmental impact of a projec~t~as
part of its overall evaluation. if the State agency
"approves a project which would have an adverse impact
on the environment, adequate justification along the
lines of Section 7 of the CEQ interim Guidelines must
be included in the written environmental assessment.
REVIEW BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES: The regional office will
determine which Federal agencies should be consulted
on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Section 8
of the CEQ Inte r im Gu ide 1 in es . Copies of the environ-
mental assessment received from the applicant will
be circulated for review and comment,
FWQA REVIEW CHANNELS: As_pri™ary y^fiponsibility for review
and approval of construction grants re«*-g with flip
*5egion_ai^_DiEfegtor., responsibility for the environ-L
mental assessment rests with the Regional Director.
PYior to" approval u£ any grant offer" regional
personnel must review the assessment to assure that
environmental matters have been properly considered.
An FWQA commentary will be added to the applicant's
environmental assessment indicating that this has
been done and that the project as proposed will have
Appendix C.
2
105
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
less detrimental effect on the environment than
feasible alternatives.
If the Regional Director, after review of the project
and applicant's environmental assessment and^after_
obtaining local, State, and Federal reviews as
necessary, determines that the project would have no
significant or controversial impact on the environ-
ment, the envTroinrnental assessment and commentary are
to be retained in the regional office (subject to
future reference, if necessary). An information copy
of the environmental assessment will be provided for
the Headquarters Construction Grant files.
If the Regional Director, ofter review of the project
and applicant's environmental assessment and after
obtaining appropriate reviews, determines that the
project will have a significant impact on the environ-
ment which cannot be avoided, is controversial, or
raises issues of national policy significance, the
following procedures are to be applied:
1. The region will prepare a draft Environmental
Statement, in accordance with the CEQ Interim
Guidelines. The applicant's environmental assess-
ment and agency commentary should facilitate this
task.
2. Two copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and any comments already received from other
local, State, or Federal agencies will be for-
warded to Headquarters (Construction Grants and
Engineering Branch) for policy review and trans-
mittal- to the Office of the Secretary, DOI, in
accordance with 516 DM 2. The region's trans-
mittal memorandum to Headquarters should state
action recommendations and indicate what Federal
agencies are being asked to review the statement.
Appendix C,
3
106
-------
3200.1 October 15, 1970
3. Review by other Federal agencies will be obtained
in accordance with Section 8 of the CEQ Interim
Guidelines. A review time of not less than 30
days is specified by CEQ. Determination of what
agencies should review the statement is to be
made on a case-by-case basis by the Regional
Director. In some cases, it may be necessary to
obtain further local and State views. Two copies
of comments received, including those from other
interior bureaus, will be transmitted to the
Construction Grants and Engineering Branch, upon
receipt.
4. Ten copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and comments already received will be sent to the
Council on Environmental Quality, along with a
transmittal memorandum from the region indicating
simply that the draft Statement is under review
by the Department and listing agencies which have
been asked to comment. CEQ procedures require
that 10 copies of all comments received front1
other agencies should be sent to the Council'upon
receipt. Comments from Interior bureaus are'not
considered to be "other agency" comments and thus
are not subject to this requirement.
5. After receiving the views of commenting agencies
and Headquarters, responsibility for submitting
the final Environmental Statement rests with the
Regional Director, acting under general policy
guidance from the Commissioner. The final
Environmental Statement in these cases will
represent a resolution of the issues insofar as
possible.
6. Thirteen copies of the final Statement, and other
agency comments, plus two copies of all comments
received from interior bureaus, are to be trans-
mitted through normal Headquarters policy
clearance channels to the Office of the Secretary
Appendix C.
4
107
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
for final action and transmittal to the Council
on Environmental Quality. If significant environ-
mental issues remain unresolved, the project will
not be approved until after the Department has
acted favorably on the final Environmental State-
ment.
Appendix C.
5
108
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
Environmental Assessment
Waste Treatment Works Construction Grants
Project Identification
Name of Applicant:
Address:
Project Number;
Location of Project:
Brief Description of Project:
I, Probable impact of the project on environments
II. Any probable adverse environmental effects which'
cannot be avoided:
III. Alternatives considered with evaluation of each:
IV. Relationship between local short-term uses of
environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity!
V, Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources s
VI. Public objections to project, if any, and their
resolution:
Applicant's Representative
Comments by State w?«-er pollution control agency:
Figure C-l. Format for Environmental Assessment
6
109
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
TYPE OF ACTION: Research, Development, and Demonstration
Grants and contracts
FWQA ORGANIZATION: Office of Research and Development
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO BE PREPARED BY: Applicant -
subject to supplementary comments by State water
pollution control agency, as appropriate
GUIDELINES: A paragraph will be added to the "instructions
for completing Applications for Research, Development,
and Demonstration Grants" regarding "Assurance of
Compliance with National Environmental .Policy Act of
1969." This would be part of the information kit
which potential applicants^ receive (copies will be
reproduced at Headquarters for distribution, as will
the other information material noted below). This
will be supplemented by a format sheet, Figure D-l,
suggesting an appropriate outline for the written
presentation of the environmental assessment and
attaching excerpts from the CEQ Interim Guidelines,
Appendix A, regarding the kinds of analyses necessary.
The applicant will be asked to provide the written
environmental assessment when the grant or contract
application is submitted.
The requirement to prepare an environmental assessment
applies to an applicant for any grant or contract
which would involve physical construction, physical
modification of the environment, or other activities
which would have a direct impact on some aspect of
the environment. Examples: construction of pilot
facilities, demonstration of oil spill cleanup
techniques..
This requirement applies to all new applications for
grants and contracts which fit into the above defini-
tion. In addition, the region is directed to provide
for preparation of environmental assessments by all
applicants whose projects would fit the above
definition and whose applications are now under
Federal review or are expected to be forwarded by the
State. . •
Appendix D. Research, Development, and Demonstration
Grants and contracts
110
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
REVIEW GUIDELINES: These procedures, the Departmental
Procedures on Environmental Quality, 516 DM 1-3, and
the CEQ Interim Guidelines. The requirement for
environmental assessments, the factors which should
be considered in reviewing the assessments, the need
to obtain comments from other environmental agencies
as appropriate, the conditions under which Environ-
mental Statements should be prepared and the proce-
dures for review and transmittal of Environmental
Statements to the Department and CEQ will be reflected
in modifications of the Office of Research and
Development, "Research, Development, and Demonstration
Program Grant and Contract Processing System" (USDI,
FWQA, December 1969).
PROVISION FOR STATE AND/OR LOCAL REVIEW: The^ written
Environmental assessment, prepare£Lbv.-.the_-afip1 leant,
will indicate the State and local governmental agen^
cies consulted about the project. For grant and
contract applications which are subject to State
approval, the region will direct the State water
pollution control agency to evaluate the environmental
impact as part of its overall evaluation of a project.
If the State agency approves a project which would
have an adverse impact on the environment, adequate
justification along the lines of Section 7 of the CEQ
Interim Guidelines must be included in the written
environmental assessment.
If the State and local agencies have not been con-
sulted; and/or if the preliminary environmental
assessment represents, in tne judamen^ of tne regional
R&IJ representatives, a significant; issue? tne.
following additional steps win oe initiated:
1. The regional office will contact the State and
local agencies for comment on the environmental
impact of the project. Grant and contract proj-
ects which impact the environment but do not
require State approval under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, must have
State review of the assessment of environmental
Appendix D.
2
111
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
impact. On certain controversial issues, the
views of State environmental agencies in addition
to the water pollution control officials may be
needed.
2. If warranted, the regional office will coordinate
preparation of a more detailed environmental
assessment by the applicant and the appropriate
State and local agencies.
REVIEW BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES: The regional office will
determine which Federal agencies should be consulted
on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Section 8
of the CEQ interim Guidelines. Copies of the environ-
mental assessment received from the applicant, will be
circulated for review ant* comment.
FWQA REVIEW CHANNELS: As primary responsibility for
review of resgargh__and development proposals, in
terms of policy^ and regional or local implications,
'rests with^Eh^"lteglonal~'Directors, responsibility for
the environmental assessment rests with the Regional
Director in whose region the project will be conducted,
Prior to approval of any grant offer or contract
award, the regional office must review the written
assessment to assure that environmental matters have
been properly considered. An FWQA commentary will be
added to the applicant's environmental assessment
indicating that this has been done and that the proj-
ect as proposed will have less detrimental effect on
the environment than feasible alternatives.
If the Regional Director, after review of the project
and applicant's environmental assessment and after
obtaining local, State, and Federal reviews as
necessary, determines that the project would have no
significant or controversial impact on the environ-
ment, the environmental assessment and commentary are
to be retained in the regional office (subject to
future reference, if necessary). An information copy
of the environmental assessment will be provided for
the Headquarters R&D project files.
Appendix D.
3
11?
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
If the Regional Director, after review of the project
and applicant's environmental assessment and after
obtaining appropriate reviews, determines that the
project will have a significant impact on the environ-
ment which cannot be avoided, is controversial, or
raises issues of national policy significance, the
following procedures are to be applied:
1. The region will prepare a draft Environmental
Statement, in accordance with the CEQ Interim
Guidelines. The applicant's environmental assess-
ment and agency commentary should facilitate this
task.
2. Two copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and any comments already received from other
local, State, or Federal agencies will be for-
warded to Headquarters (Office of Research and
Development) for policy review and transmittal to
the Office of the Secretary, DOI, in accordance
with 516 DM 2. The region's transmittal
memorandum to Headquarters should state action
recommendations and indicate what Federal agencies
are being asked to review the Statement.
3. Review by other Federal agencies will be obtained
in accordance with Section 8 of the CEQ Interim
Guidelines. A review time of not less than 30
days is specified by CEQ. Determination of what
agencies should review the statement is to be
made on a case-by-case basis by the Regional
Director. In some cases, it may be necessary to
obtain further local and State views. Two copies
of comments received, including those from other
Interior bureaus, will be transmitted to Head-
quarters, upon receipt.
4. Ten copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and comments already received will ba sent to the
Council on Environmental Quality, along with a
transmittal memorandum from the region indicating
simply that the draft Statement is under review
Appendix D.
4
113
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
by the Department and listing agencies which have
been asked to comment. CEQ procedures require
that 10 copies of all comments received from
other agencies should be sent to the Council upon
receipt. Comments from Interior bureaus are not
considered to be "other agency" comments and thus
are not subject to this requirement.
5. After receiving the views of commenting agencies
and Headquarters, responsibility for submitting
the final Environmental Statement rests with the
Regional Director, acting under general policy
guidance from the Commissioner. The final
Environmental Statement in these cases will
represent a resoluticn^of the issues insofar as
possible.
6. Thirteen copies of the final Statement and other
agency comments, plus two copies of all comments
received from Interior bureaus, are to be trans-
mitted through normal Headquarters policy
clearance channels to the Office of the Secretary
for final action and transmittal to the council
on Environmental Quality. If significant environ-
mental issues remain unresolved, the project will
not be approved until after the Department has
acted favorably on the final Environmental
Statement.
ADDITIONAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: It should be noted that
the findings of research, development, and demonstra-
tion grants and contracts, as well as intramural
research activities, may result in action recommenda-
tions which could have an impact on the environment
if carried out (e.g. use of deep well disposal in
some instances). It will be necessary for FWQA
programs to assess the environmental impact of
carrying out applications of new technology or other
R&D development, prior to acting on research
findings.
Appendix D.
5
114
-------
C(1M 3200.1 October 15, 1970
Environmental Assessment
Research,Development and Demonstration Grants and Contracts
Project Identification
Name of Applicant;
Address:
Project Number«
Location of Project:
Brief Description of project:
I. Probable impact of the project on environments
IX. Any probable adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided:
III. Alternatives considered with evaluation of eachi
IV. Relationship between local short-term uses of en-
vironment and maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity.
.V. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources:
VI. Public objections to project, if any, and their
resolution:
VII. Agencies consulted about the project
State Representative's Name:
Local Representative's Name:
Applicant's Representative
Fiyure U-l. Format for Environmental Assessment
115
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
TYPE OF ACTION: Basin Planning Grants
FWQA ORGANIZATION: Planning Branch, Division of Planning
and Interagency Programs, Office of
Operations
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO BE PREPARED BY: Grantee
GUIDELINES: Instructions will be added to the "Guidelines
for Grants, Comprehensive River Basin Planning" indi-
cating that as a condition of the grant award, the
grantee will be required to prepare an environmental
assessment as a part of the river basin plan. The
instructions to grant applicants will be supplemented
by a format sheet, Figure, ET-!, suggesting an appro-
priate outline for the written presentation of the
environmental assessment and attaching excerpts from
the CEQ Interim Guidelines, Appendix A, regarding the
kinds of analyses necessary. Submission of a written
assessment will be required at the time the plan is
submitted for FWQA review, and prior to any implemen-
tation measures.
Copies of the information for grantees are being
reproduced at Headquarters for the regional offices
to supply to potential grant applicants. The region
is to provide for preparation of environmental
assessments by all grantees now formulating plans.
REVIEW GUIDELINES: These procedures, the Departmental
procedures on Environmental Quality, 516 DM 1-3, and
the CEQ Interim Guidelines. The requirement for
environmental assessments, the factors which should
be considered in reviewing-the assessments, the need
to obtain comments from other environmental agencies
as appropriate, the conditions under which Environ-
mental Statements should be prepared, and the
procedures for review and transmittal of Environmental
Statements to the Department and CEQ will be reflected
in the proposed "Planning Grants Handbook."
Appendix E. Basin Planning Grants
116
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
PROVISION FOR STATE AND LOCAL REVIEW: Local review is to
be obtained in accordance with established procedures
under BOB Circular A-95, modified as necessary to
incorporate full environmental review.
State review is to be obtained in accordance with
existing procedures, modified as necessary to
incorporate full environmental review, under Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
In all planning activities conducted under Section
3(c) of the Act, the concerned State and local
agencies are involved in the planning process as
members of the required advisory board.
-REVIEW BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES: The regional office
will determine which Federal agencies should be
consulted on a case-by-case basis in accordance with
Section 8 of the CEQ Interim Guidelines. Copies of
the environmental assessment received from the grantee
will be circulated for review and comment.
FWQA R3VIEW CHANNELS: As primary responsibility for re-
view of the basin plan rests with the Regional
Director, responsibility for the environmental
assessment rests with the Regional Director. Prior
to acceptance of the plan, regional personnel must
review the assessment to assure that environmental
matters have been properly considered. An FWQA
commentary will be added to the grantee's environ-
mental assessment indicating that this has been done
and that the plan as proposed will have less detri-
mental effect on the environment than feasible
alternatives.
If the Regional Director, after review of the plan
and grantee's environmental assessment and after
obtaining other local, State, and Federal reviews, as
necessary, determines that the plan would have no
significant or controversial impact on the environment,
the environmental assessment and commentary are to be
Appendix E.
2
117
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
retained in the regional office (subject to future
reference, if necessary). An information copy of the
environmental assessment will be provided for the
Headquarters Planning Grants files.
If the Regional Director, after review of the plan
and grantee's environmental assessment and after
obtaining local and State reviews, determines that
the plan will have a significant impact on the
environment which cannot be avoided, is controversial,
or'raises issues of national policy significance, the
following procedures are to be applied:
1. The region will prepare a draft Environmental
Statement in accordance w^th the CEQ Interim
Guidelines. The grantee's environmental assess-
ment and agency commentary should facilitate this
task.
2. Two copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and any comments already received from other
local. State, or Federal agencies will be for-
warded to Headquarters (Planning Branch) for
policy review and transmittal to the Office of
the Secretary, DOI, in accordance with 516 DM 2.
The region's transmittal memorandum to Head-
quarters should state action recommendations and
indicate what Federal agencies are being asked
to review the Statement.
3. Review by other Federal agencies will be obtained
in accordance with Section 8 of the CEQ Interim
Guidelines. A review time of not less than 30
days is specified by CEQ. —Determination of what
agencies should review the Statement is to be
made on a case-by-case basis by the Regional
^Director. In some cases, it may be necessary to
obtain further local and State views. Two copies
of comments received, including those from other
Interior bureaus, will be transmitted to the
Planning Branch, upon receipt.
Appendix E.
3
118
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
4. Ten copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and comments already received will be sent to the
Council on Environmental Quality, along with a
transmittal memorandum from the region indicating
simply that the draft Statement is under review
by the Department and listing agencies which have
been asked to comment. CEQ procedures require
that 10 copies of all comments received from
other agencies should be sent to the Council upon
receipt. Comments from Interior bureaus are not
considered to be "other agency" comments and thus
are not subject to this requirement.
5. After receiving the views of commenting agencies
and Headquarters, responsibility for submitting
the final Environmental Statement rests with the
Regional Director, acting under general policy
guidance from the Commissioner. The final En-
vironmental Statement in these cases will repre-
sent a resolution of the issues insofar as
possible.
6. Thirteen copies of the final Statement and other
agency comments, plus two copies of all comments
received from Interior bureaus, are to be trans-
mitted through normal Headquarters policy chan-
nels to the Office of the Secretary for final
action and transmittal to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality. If significant environmental
issues remain unresolved, the plan will not be
approved until after the Department has acted
favorably on the final Environmental Statement.
Appendix E.
4
119
-------
(X:toler Ih. J'J70 COM 3200. 1
Environmental Assessment
Planning Grants Program - Section 3(c)
An environmental assessment is to be prepared as part of
the plan.
Tt>e assessment will address 'tself to the following:
1. Probable impact of the plan on the environment.
2. Any probable adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided.
3. Alternatives considered with evaluation from environ-
mental standpoint.
4. Relationship between planned local short-term uses of
environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity.
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources.
6. Indicate public objections to plan arising because of
environmental issues, if any, and their resolution.
i'irjutu B-l. Format for environmental Assessment
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
TYPE OF ACTION: Section 3(a) Planning Program - FWQA
Basin Planning
FWQA ORGANIZATION: Planning Branch, Division of Planning
and Interagency Programs, Office of
Operations
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT TO BE PREPARED BY: FWQA regional
office
GUIDELINES: All plans developed under Section 3(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, will
include an environmental assessment which addresses
itself to the factors described in Figure F-l and
Section 7 of the CEQ Interim Guidelines, Appendix A.
Instructions contained in this memorandum regarding
conduct of environmental assessments and preparation
and review of necessary Environmental statements will
be included as part of the "Planning Handbook."
Guidance will also be obtained from the Departmental
procedures on Environmental Quality, 516 DM 1-3.
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: In preparing reports
on basin plans developed by FWQA, an assessment must
be made of the extent to which recommendations for
water pollution control measures might result in
damage to other environmental values. Responsibility
for assuring that an adequate environmental assess-
ment is made in the plan preparation rests with the
Regional Director.
The scope of review and coordination activities with
local, State, and Federal agencies under present
operating procedures mvTst "be enlarged to incorporate
review of the environmental impact by appropriate
agencies. The region will determine which Federal,
State, and local environmental agencies should be
consulted on a case-by-case basis.
in submitting a basin planning report for approval by
the Commissioner, the Regional Director will include
commentary on the significance of any environmental
impact of the plan.
Appendix F. FWQA Basin Planning
121
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: In developing basin
plans, every effort must be made to avoid recommending
actions which could have an adverse environmental
impact. However, if, after assessing alternative
plans and the reactions of other environmental agencies
to the alternatives, the Regional Director determines
that the best course of action is to recommend
measures which might have a significant or contro-
versial environmental impact, a draft Environmental
Statement must be prepared. The factors which must
be presented are those covered by the environmental
assessment.
This determination must be made prior to submitting
the plan for Headquarters approval, and the draft
Environmental Statement prepared and circulated for
review in the manner outlined below. Headquarters
review of the draft Environmental Statement will be
made in connection with normal clearance of the basin
planning report.
REVIEW AND TRANSMITTAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS:
1. Two copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and any comments already received from other
local, State or Federal agencies will be for-
warded to Headquarters for policy review and
transmittal to the Office of the Secretary, DOI,
in accordance with Departmental procedures, 516
DM 2. The region's transmittal memorandum to
Headquarters should state action recommendations
and indicate what Federal agencies are being
asked to review the statement.
2. Review of the draft Environmental Statement by
other agencies will be obtained in accordance
with Section 8 of the CEQ Interim Guidelines. A
review time of not less than 30 days is required.
Determination of which agencies should review the
Statement is to be made on a case-by-case basis
by the Regional Director. In some cases, it may
be necessary to obtain further local and State
Appendix F.
2
122
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200,1
views. Consideration should be given to the need
for local public hearings.
3. Ten copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and comments already received will be sent to the
Council on Environmental Quality, along with a
transmittal memorandum from the region indicating
simply that the action and draft Statement are
under review by the Department and listing
agencies which have been asked to comment. CEQ
procedures require that 10 copies of all comments
received from other agencies should be sent to the
Council upon receipt. Comments received from
other Interior bureuuk are not considered to be
"other agency" comments and thus are exempt from
this requirement.
4. After receiving the views of commenting agencies
and Headquarters, responsibility for submitting
the final Environmental Statement rests with the
Regional Director, acting under general policy
guidance from the Commissioner. The final
Environmental Statement will represent a resolu-
tion of the issues insofar as possible.
5. Thirteen copies of the final Statement and other
agency comments, plus two copies of the comments
received from other interior bureaus, are to be
transmitted through normal Headquarters policy
channels to the Office of the Secretary for final
action and transmittal to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality. if significant environmental
issues:-remain unresolved,- the plan will not be
approved until after the Department has acted
favorably on the final Environmental Statement.
Appendix^.
3
-------
COM 3200. 1 October IS, 1970
Environmental Assessment
Section 3(a) Planning (FWQR)
All plans developed tinder Section 3(z*> will include an
environmental assessment which addresses itself to the
following:
1. Probable impact of the plan on the environment.
2. Any probablo adverse environmental effects which
cannot be avoided.
3. Alternatives considered with evaluation from environ-
mental standpoint.
4. Relationship between planned local short-term uses of
environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity.
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources.
6. indicate public objections to plan, if any, and their
resolution.
figure F-l. Format for Environmental Assessment
4 124
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
TYPE OF ACTION: Technical Study Reports
FWQA ORGANIZATION: Division of Technical Support, Office
of Operations
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT TO BE PREPARED BY: FWQA regional
offices
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: In preparing reports
on technical studies carried out by FWQA, an assess-
ment must be made of the extent to which recommenda-
tions for water pollution control measures might
result in damage to other environmental values.
Responsibility for assuring that an adequate environ-
mental assessment is made in the technical report
preparation process rests with the Regional Director.
Tne scope of review and coordination activities with
local, State and Federal agencies under present
operation procedures must be enlarged to incorporate
review of the environmental impact by appropriate
agencies. The region will determine which Federal,
State and local environmental agencies should be
consulted on a case-by-case basis.
In submitting a technical report for approval by the
Commissioner, the Regional Director will include a
commentary on the significance of any environmental
impact of the report recommendations.
NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT: In developing report
recommendations, every effort must be made to avoid
recommending actions which could have an adverse
environmental impact. However, if, after assessing
the alternatives for water quality protection and the
reactions of other environmental agencies to the
alternatives, the Regional Director determines that
the best course of action is to recommend measures
which might have a significant or controversial
environmental impact, a draft Environmental Statement
must be prepared. The factors which must be analyzed
in the Statement are outlined in Figure G-l and
125
Appendix G. FWQA Technical Studies
-------
October 15, 1970
COM 3200.1
discussed in Section 7 of the CEQ interim Guidelines,
Appendix A.
This determination must be made prior to submitting
the study report for Headquarters approval, and the
draft Environmental Statement prepared and circulated
for review in the manner outlined below. Headquarters
review of the draft Environmental Statement will be
made in connection 'with normal clearance of the re-
port.
REVIEW GUIDELINES: These procedures ^%D*P*^ef &nd
procedures on Environmental Quality, 516 DM 1-3, and
"the CEQ rnfcerim Guidelines. TKe< requirement for
Environmental assessments, the factors whi ch should
be considered in reviewing the assessments the need
to obtain comments from other environmental agencies
as appropriate, the conditions under which Environ-
mental Statements should be prepared, and the proce
dures for review and transmittal of Env^°"ment^ . ,
Statements to the Department and CEQ will be reflected
?n Se "Technical Studies Reporting System" now being
prepared.
REVIEW AND TRANSMITTAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS:
1. TWO copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and any comments already received fro" other
local. State or Federal agencies will be for-
warded to Headquarters for PolicyreVTrv DOI
transmittal to the Office of the Secretary, DOI,
in accordance with 516 DM 2. The region s
transmittal memorandum to -Headquarters should s tat
action recommendations and indicate which Federal
agencies are being asfced to review the statement..
2 Review of the draft Environmental Statement by
other agencies will be obtained in accordance
with Section 8 of the CEQ interim Guidelines.
A review time of not less than 30 days is
required. Determination of which agencies should
126
Appendix G,
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
review the Statement is to be made on a case-by-
case basis by the Regional Director.
3. Ten copies of the draft Environmental Statement
and comments already received will be sent to the
Council on Environmental Quality, along with a
transmittal memorandum from the region indicating
simply that the action and draft Statement are
under review by the Department and listing agencies
which have been asked to comment. CEQ procedures
require that 10 copies of all comments received
from other agencies should be sent to the Council
upon receipt. Comments received from other
Interior bureaus are not considered to be "other
agency" comments anci thus are exempt from this
requirement.
4. After receiving the views of commenting agencies
and Headquarters, responsibility for submitting
the final Environmental Statement rests with the
Regional Director, acting under general policy
guidance from the Commissioner. The final
Environmental statement will represent a resolu-
tion of the issues insofar as possible.
5. Thirteen copies of the final Statement and other
agency comments, plus two copies of the comments
received from other Interior bureaus, are to be
transmitted through normal Headquarters policy
channels to the Office of the Secretary for final
action and transmittal to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality. If significant environmental
issues, remain unresolved, the report will not be
approved until after the Department has acted
favorably on the final Environmental Statement.
Appendix G.
3
127
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
Environmental Statement
Technical Reports
All technical reports developed by FWQA which contain
recommendations for specific pollution control measures
which may have a significant or controversial impact on
the environment will include an Environmental Statement
which addresses itself to the following:
1. Probable impact of implementing recommendations on the
environment.
2. Any probable adverse environmental effects which could
not be avoided.
3. Alternatives considered with evaluation from environ-
mental standpoint,
4. Relationship between planned local short-term uses of
environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity.
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources.
6. indicate public objections to recommendations, if any,
and their resolution.
Figure o-l. Format for Environmental statement
4 128
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
TYPE OF ACTION: Construction of Laboratory, Pilot Plant or
other FWQA Facilities
FWQA ORGANIZATION: Division of Facilities Management,
Office of Administration
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO BE PREPARED BY: Laboratory or
Facility Director, in case of expansion or major
improvement of established laboratory or pilot plant
facilities; Headquarters program director in the case
of planned facilities where no Laboratory or Facility
Director has been designated.
GUIDELINES: An environmental assessment will be prepared
reflecting the rationale of the site selection along
with the need and justification for the facility.
At Figure H-l is a format suggesting an appropriate
outline for the written presentation of the environ-
mental assessment in accordance with the factors
covered in Section 7 of the CEQ Interim Guidelines,
Appendix A. The assessment will indicate what
measures will be taken during construction to
minimize harmful environmental effects such as
erosion, and what facilities are planned for mini-
mizing the environmental impact resulting from use of
the facility (waste treatment, solid waste disposal,
use of fuels, etc.)- Additional guidance is found in
the Departmental procedures on Environmental Quality,
516 DM 1-3.
PROVISION FOR STATE AND/OR LOCAL REVIEW: The environ-
mental assessment will indicate the State and local
government agencies consulted about the facility.
Agencies should not be consulted or contacted without
prior notification of, or coordination With, the
Regional Director of the region in which the planned-
facility is to be located.
REVIEW BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES: The official preparing
the environmental assessment will determine on a
case-by-case basis which Federal agencies should be
consulted.
Appendix H. FWQA Facility Construction
129
-------
COM 3200. October 15, 1970
FWQA REVIF-W CHANNELS: Primary responsibility for review
and approval of the environmental assessment rests
with the Assistant Commissioner(s) of the program(s)
to be using the facility. Joint responsibility rests
with the Assistant Commissioner for Administration.
If these Assistant Commissioners, after reviewing the
environmental assessment and any comments by local.
State, or Federal agencies, determine that the facility
location, construction and operation would have no
significant or controversial impact on the environ-
ment, the environmental assessment and commentary are
to be retained in FWQA.
If the Assistant Commissioners^ after review of the
environmental assessment and commentary by other
agencies, determine that the facility will have a
significant impact on the environment which cannot be
avoided or is controversial, the following procedures
are to be applied:
1. The official who prepared the environmental
assessment will draft a formal Environmental
Statement.
2. A copy of the draft Environmental Statement and
any comments already received from other local,
State, or Federal agencies will be forwarded
through Headquarters policy review channels to the
Office of the Secretary, DOI, in accordance with
516 DM 2.
3. Ten copies of th'e draft Environmental Statement
and comments already received will be sent to the
Council on Environmental' Quality, along with a
transmittal memorandum from the Assistant
Commissioner for Administration indicating simply
£hat the draft statement is under review by the
Department and listing agencies which have been
asked to comment. CEQ procedures require that 10
copies of all comments received from other agen-
cies should be sent to the Council upon receipt.
Comments from interior bureaus are not considered
Appendix H.
2
130
-------
October 15, 1970 COM 3200.1
to be "other agency" comments and thus are not
subject to this requirement.
4. Review by other Federal agencies will be obtained
in accordance with Section 8 of the CEQ Interim
Guidelines. A review time of not less than 30
days is specified by CEQ. Determination of which
agencies should review the Statement is to be
made on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it
may be necessary to obtain further local and
State views.
5. After receiving the views of commenting agencies,
the program Assistant Commissioner(s) and the
Assistant Commissidner for Administration, final
responsibility for acting on the facility and
submitting the final Environmental Statement tp
the Department rests with the commissioner. The
final Statement will represent a resolution of
the issues insofar as possible.
6. Eleven copies of the final statement and other
agency comments, plus a copy of all comments
received from Interior bureaus, are to be
transmitted from FWQA to the Office of the
Secretary for final action and transmittal to the
Council on Environmental Quality. If significant
environmental issues remain unresolved, the
facility will not be approved until after the
Department has acted favorably on the final
Environmental Statement.
Appendix H.
131 3
-------
COM 3200.1 October 15, 1970
Environmental Assessment
FVfOA Facility Construction
Project Identification
Name of Responsible Program Manager:
Address:
Facilities Identifications
Location of Project:
Brief Description of Project:
I. Probable impact of the project on environment:
A. Location
B. Operation (include details on inspection during
construction)
IX. Any probable adverse environmental effects which can-
not be avoided:
III. Alternatives considered with evaluation of each:
IV. Relationship between local short-term uses of en-
vironment and maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity
V. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources:
VI. Public objections to project, if any, and their
resolution: '
VII. Local agencies consulted about the project:
Fiywro ll-l. Format for Environmental Assessment
« 132
-------
FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
WASHINGTON, D,C.
Volume 37 • Number 112
PART III
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
•
GENERAL GRANT
REGULATIONS
AND PROCEDURES,-
STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
•
Interim Regulations
NO. 112—pt. in 1
133
-------
RULIS AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—PROTECTION OF
ENVIRONMENT
Chapter I—Environmental Protection
Agency
SUBCHAPTER B—GRANTS
PART 30—GENERAL GRANT
REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Interim Regulations
Interim regulations are hereby pro-
mulgated to amend the Environmental
Protection Agency general grant regula-
tions (40 CFR Part 30> and to publish a
new codification (40 CFR, Part 35) of
State and local' assistance grant regula-
tions supplementing: the general grant
regulations. Publication of these regiila-
Uo;is is a continuation of an effort to co-
ordinate and conform grant award and
administration policies, procedures, and
term* for the various EPA grant pro-
grams, to improve administration of
these grant programs and to furnish ap-
plicants, grantees, and the public with a
more explicit statement of grant award
and administration requirements." Pend-
ing legislation, when enacted, will require
revision of some portions of these regu-
lations issued under the authority of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
This codification is intended to provide a
framework for development of future
regulations.
Included within these regulations is a
first amendment to the EPA interim gen-
eral grant regulations (40 CFR Part 30)
which were promulgated on November
27, 1971 (35 F.R. 22716) and became ef-
fective on January 1,1972. This amend-
ment, which does not substantially
change the provisions of Part 30, consists
of technical revisions, corrections of
typographical errors, and clarifications
found necessary to Improve the admin-
istration of EPA grant programs.
In addition, a new Part 35 is promul-
gated which contains supplemental grant
regulations for all EPA State and local
assistance grants. All EPA grants to
State and local public agencies (other
than grants principally for research,
demonstration projects, and training)
awarded after the effective date of Part
35 sliall be subject to these regulations.
For the most part, these regulations con-
stitute a more explicit statement of prior
regulations or of previously uneodif.ed
policies, procedures, and terms of the re-
spective grant programs. Most changes
are attributable to the effort, to coordi-
nate and conform EPA grant policies
and procedures.
The State and local assistance grant
program regulations in effect at. the time
cf rtcodification of EPA regulations into
Title 40 of the Code cf Federal Regula-
tions on November 25, 1971, were re-
moved from the Code of Federal Regula-
tions (36 F.R, 22369). These regulations.
which were maintained as uncodified
or.s and v,:!; continue to remain
in effect lor Gtato and local assistance
grants awarded fwior to July 1, 1972, to
the extent such regulations arc not in-
consistent with the EPA eeneriil grant
regulations (-50 CFR Part 30), are:
Title IS. Part G01 (Jan. 1, 1971. ed.. as
amended at 30 F.R. 1467 to revise
§601.7. at 36 P.R. 8666 to revise
§601.22, at 36 F.R. 13029 to revise
I 601.25fb). and at 36 F.R. 1467 to re-
vise § 601.G5(a) (9))—Grants for water
pollution control.
Title 42, Part 456 (Jan. 1. 1971, ed.)—
Grants for air pollution control
programs.
Title 42. Part 460 (Jan. 1. 1971. ed., as
amended at 36 F.R. 18622 to revise Part
460)—General Provisions Applicable
to Grants under sections 204, 205, 207,
208, and 210 or the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act.
Title 42, Part 4C3 (added at 36 F.R.
1862G)—Grants for Planning under
section 207 of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act.
However, the State and local assistance
grant regulations promulgated hereby
(40 CFR Part 35) may be made appli-
cable to such grants awarded prior to
July 1, 1972, in place of the above-men-
tioned uncodified regulations by explicit
incorporation through grant amendment
pursuant to 40 CFR 30.901.
All State and local assistance grants.
including continuation grants (see 40
CFR 30.30S), awarded on or after July 1,
1S»72, will be subject to the EPA general
grant regulations (40 CFR Part 30) and
to the appropriate subpart(s) of the sup-
plemental grant regulations published
herewith (40 CFR Part 35).
Interested parties and Government
agencies arc encouraged to submit writ-
ten comments, views, or data concerning
the regulations promulgated hereby to
the Director, Grants Administration Di-
vision, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460. All such sub-
missions received on or before Septem-
ber 29, 1972, wiU be considered prior to
the promulgation of final EPA general or
supplemental grant regulations. Sugges-
tions for changes to the regulations
promulgated in this subchapter are so-
licited on a continuous basis pursuant to
40 CFR 30.106.
Effective date. The amendments to
Part 30 'Interim General Grant Regu-
lations arid Procedures) and the interim
State ancl local assistance grant regula-
tions and procedures of the new Part 35
promulgated hereby shall become effec-
tive on July i, 1972. All Environmental
Protection Agency grants awarded on or
after July 1, J972, shall be subject to the
interim general grant regulations and
procedures of 40 CFR Part 30, as hereby
amended. All State and local assistance
grants of the Environmental Protection
Agency awarded on or after July 1,1972,
shall also be subject to the interim State
and local assistance regulations and pro-
cedures of 40 CFR Part 35.
Dated: Juna 5, 1S72.
ROBERT W. FBI.
Deputy Administrator.
Pursuant to the authorities cited in 40
CFR 30.101, Part 30 is amended as
follows:
§ 30.102 [Amended]
Section 30.102. Delete the eighth word
"will" in the flrst sentence.
§30.107 [Amended]
Section 30.107. Correct the room num-
ber in the Region II address from Room
"841" to Room "908." Correct the ZIP
Code for the Region VI office in Dallas,
Tex., to "75201." Delete the address for
the Region VII office and sustitute
"Room 249,1735 Baltimore Avenue, Kan-
sas City. MO 64108."
§ 30.300-1 [Amended]
Section 30.300-1. Delete "the require-
ments of this regulation" from the first
sentence and substitute "the application
requirements of this Subchapter" and
delete the last seven words in the first
sentence "such forms as the Adminis-
trator shall prescribe" and substitute
"EPA Form 5700-12."
§ 30.301-4 [Amended]
Section 30.301-4. Delete the reference
to Catalog No. "66.301" and to the pro-
gram identification "Solid Waste Plan-
ning Grants" from the listing under par-
agraph (a) and add as the second item
in the listing under paragraph (b) a ref-
erence to Catalog No. "66.301" and to the
program identification "Solid Waste
Planning Grants". Applications for Solid
Waste Planning Grants should now be
addressed to the appropriate EPA Re-
gional office. Grants Administration
Branch.
§ 30.305 [Amended]
Section 30.305. Delete the tenth word
"or" in the last sentence and substitute
therefor "for".
§ 30.401 [Amended]
Section 30.401. In paragraph (c), de-
lete the words "race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin" and substitute there-
for "race, color or national origin". In
paragraph (g), delete the reference to
the OMB circular at the end of the sen-
tence, and substitute "OMB Circular No.
A-95 (Rev. February 9, 1971, as revised
through Transmittal Memorandum No.
2, March 8, 1972)." In paragraph (h),
delete the references to the two OMB
circulars at the end of the sentence and
substitute "OMB Circular No. A-95 (Rev.
February 9, 1971, as revised through
Transmittal Memorandum No. 2,
March 8, 1972) and OMB Circular No.
A-95 (June 5, 1370).
§ 30.602 f Amended]
Section 30.602. Delete the first sen-
tence and substitute the following as the
new flrst sentence: "EPA grant funds
shall be paid in advance or by way of
reimbursement for allowable project
costs, in the manner provided by this
Subchapter and in the grant agreement."
§ 30.602 [Amended]
Sec? n 30.603. Delete the matter in
parer.:'',:ses at the end of the second
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 37, NO, J12—FRIDAY, JUNE «. 1972
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
11651
sentence and substitute "(in accordance
with OMB Circular No. A-102)."
§ 30.901 [Amended]
Section 30.901. Delete the following
words from the second sentence: "by
the Project Manager on behalf of the
Grantee" and substitute therefor "by an
authorized representative of the
Grantee".
§ 30.1000-1 [Amended]
Section 30.1000-1. Delete the sentence
and substitute the following: "The Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, or his delegee. The
term 'Regional Administrator' refers to
the Regional Administrators of the 10
EPA regions, or their delegees".
Appendix A to Subchapter B—Delete
the following words from General Grant
Condition No. 8: "Executive Orders
and".
Sec.
35.001
35.002
Purpose of regulation.
Applicability and scope.
Subpart A—Planning Grants
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS
35.150 Applicability.
35.150-1 Basin control plans.
35.150-2 Regional and metropolitan plans.
WATEE QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
GRANTS
35.200 Purpose.
S5.301 Authority.
35.202 Definitions.
35.202-1 Administrative expenses.
35-202-2 Basin.
35.202-3 State.
35.205 Grant limitations.
35210 Eligibility.
35.215 Application requirements.
35.220 Criteria for award.
36.225 Water pollution control compre-
hensive basin plan.
35.230 Reports.
35530-1 Report of project expenditures.
35-230-2 Interim plan.
3S.240 Continuation grant.
SOLID WASTE PLANNING GRANTS
35400 Purpose.
35501 Authority.
35.302 Definitions.
36.302-1 Intermuniclpal agency.
36.302-3 Interstate agency.
36.302-3 Municipality.
35,302-4 Solid waste.
35.302-5 Solid waste disposal.
35402-6 State.
36404 Solid waste planning projects.
35404-1 Management planning.
35404-2 Special purpose planning.
35405 Grant limitations.
35410 Eligibility.
35415 ' Application.
35415-1 Preapplicatlon procedures.
35415-2 Application requirements.
35420 Criteria for award.
35420-1 All applications.
35420-2 State applications.
36420-3 Local and regional applications.
35430 Reports.
36430-1 Progress reports.
35430-2 Report of project expenditures.
35430-3 Final report.
3544O Continuation grant.
Subpart B—Program Grants
Sec.
35.400 Purpose.
35.400-1 Grants may be awarded to air
pollution control agencies and
Interstate planning agencies.
35.400-2 Grants may be awarded to State
and Interstate water pollution
control agencies.
35.401 Authority.
35.405 Criteria for evaluation of pro-
gram objectives.
35.410 Evaluation of program perform-
ance.*
35.415 Report of project expenditures.
35.420 Payment.
Am POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM GRANTS
35.501 Definitions.
35.501-1 Air pollution.
35.501-2 Air pollution control agency.
35.501-3 Air pollution control program.
35.501-4 Air quality control region.
35.501-5 Implementation plan.
35.501-6 Interstate air quality control re-
gion.
35.501-7 Interstate planning agency.
35.501-8 Maintenance program.
35.501-9 Municipality.
35.501-10 Nonrecurrent expenditures.
35.501-11 Premaintenance program.
35.501-13 Program description.
35.501-13 State,
35.505 Allocation of funds.
35.507 Federal assistance for agency
programs.
35.507-1 Limitations on assistance.
35.507-2 Limitations on duration.
35.507-3 Schedule of Federal support.
35.510 Grant amount.
35.510-1 Determination.
35.510-2 Limitations.
35.515 Eligibility.
35.515-1 Control programs.
35.515-2 Interstate planning.
35.520 Criteria for award.
35.520-1 Control programs.
35.520-2 Interstate planning.
35.525 . Program requirements.
35.525-1 Premaintenance program.
35.525-2 Maintenance programs.
35.525-3 Interstate planning.
35.530 Supplemental conditions.
35.535 Assignment of personnel.
WATEE POLLUTION CONTROL STATE AND
INTEBSTATE PROGRAM GBANTS
35.551 Definitions.
35.551-1 Allotment.
35.551-2 Federal share.
35.551-3 Interstate agency.
35.551-4 Per capita income.
35.551-5 Plan.
35.551-6 State.
35.551-7 State water pollution control
agency.
35.555 Allocation of funds.
35.555-1 Notification of funding.
35.555-2 Allotments to States.
35.555-3 Allotments to Interstate agencies.
35.555-4 Population computation.
35.557 Federal share.
35.557-1 Determination of Federal share
for States.
35.557-2 Determtnatldn of Federal share
for Interstate agencies.
35.560 Grant amount.
35.560-1 Determination.
35.560-2 Limitation.
35.560-3 Reduction of grant amount.
35.563 Grant limits and duration.
35.565 Eligibility.
35.575 Plan requirements.
Subpart C—Grants for Construction of
Wastewarer Treatment Works
Sec.
35.800 Purpose.
35.8O1 Authority.
35.805 Definitions.
35.805-1 Construction.
35.805-2 Intermunlcipal agency.
35.805-3 Interstate agency.
35.805-4 Municipality.
35.805-5 State.
35.805-6 State water pollution control
agency.
35.805-7 Treatment works.
35.810 Applicant eligibility.
35.815 Allocation of funds.
35.815-1 Allotments to States.
35.815-2 Reallotment.
35.820 Grant limitations.
35.820-1 Exceptions.
35.825 Application for grant.
35.825-1 Preapplica.tion procedures.
35.825-2 Formal application.
35.830 Determining the desirability of
projects.
35.835 Criteria for award.
35.835-1 State plan and priority.
35.835-2 Basin control.
35.835-3 Regional and metropolitan plan.
35.835-4 Adequacy of treatment.
35.835-5 Industrial waste treatment.
35.835-6 Design.
35.835-7 Operation and maintenance.
35.835-8 Operation during construction.
35.835-9 Postconstructlon inspection.
35.840 Supplemental grant conditions.
35.845 Payments.
35.850 Reimbursement [Reserved].
AUTHORITY : The provisions of this Part 35
Issued under the authorities cited in
§§ 35.201. 35.301, 35.401 and 35.801.
§ 35.001 Purpose of regulation.
This part establishes and codifies poli-
cies and procedures governing the award
of State and local assistance grants by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
§ 35.002 Applicability and scope.
This part establishes mandatory poli-
cies and procedures for all EPA State and
local assistance grants. The provisions of
this part supplement the EPA general
grant regulations and procedures (40
CFR Part 30). Accordingly, all EPA State
and local assistance grants are awarded
subject to the EPA interim general grant
regulations and procedures (40 CFR Part
30) and to the applicable provisions of
this Part 35.
Subpart A—Planning Grants
WATER POLLUTION COITTROL PLANNING
REQUIREMENTS
§ 35.150 Applicability.
The requirements of basin control and
regional and metropolitan plans apply
to:
(a) Water pollution control compre-
hensive basin plans pursuant to § 35.225;
(b) Basinwide plans and regional and
metropolitan plans as required by §| 35.-
835-2 and 35.835-3 of Subpart C for
waste water treatment works construc-
tion grants.
§ 35.150-1 Basin control plans.
Any basiiiwide plan for the control or
abatement of water pollution must ade-
quately take into account all, or such as
may be appropriate, of the following:
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 112—HflDAY, JUNE 9, 197J
135
-------
11652
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(a) Sources of pollution. An Identi-
fication list of all significant point sources
of waste discharges (municipal, indus-
trial, agricultural, and others) and of
all significant nonpoint sources of water
quality degradation.
(b) Volume of discharge. The average
daily volume of discharge produced by
each waste discharger. Cooling water, or
cooling water which is contaminated by
industrial waste or sewage shall be re-
ported separately. Storm water and
mixed storm water and sewage shall be
identified and reported separately in
terms of frequency-volume relationships.
(c) Character of effluent. The major
characteristics of each such waste dis-
charge together with a measurement of
their relative strength or concentrations
including but not limited to:
BOD 5 rng./l.
COD mg./l.
Color Platinum cobalt
scale.
Turbidity . Jackson candle
scale.
Solids ms./l.
Toxic substances
Metal Ions mg./l.
Fluorides mg./l.
Dissolved substances P-P^n.
Temperature - c.
PH
Radioactivity pCl/1.
Chlorides mg./l.
Nutrients mg./l.
Schedule of work to be
accomplished.
(7) Detailed cost and resource budget.
(8) Identification of anticipated sub-
agreements.
(c) Indicate the applicant's capa-
bility, including all necessary resources,
powers, authority, and jurisdiction to
develop a water pollution control com-
prehensive basin plan.
id) Provide for the continuirs: par-
ticipation of public and privalo State,
interstate, local, and (where appro-
priate) international officials pnd in-
terests in the basin throughout the plan-
ning process.
KDIRAL REGISTLIi, VOl. 37, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
136
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
11653
(e) Give assurance that the planning
program will develop recommendations
for maintaining and improving water
quality standards in the basin in ac-
cordance with the requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
§ 35.220 Criteria for award.
In determining the desirability and
•extent of funding for a project and rela-
tive merit of an application, considera-
tion will be given to the following
criteria:
(a) The severity of the water pollu-
tion problem in the basin and the ex-
tent to which the proposed planning
will contribute to its control;
(b) The population affected by the
water pollution problem in the basin
and the per capita cost of the proposed
planning;
(c) Whether the proposed planning
will provide the opportunity to make
substantial advances in the comprehen-
sive, basin wide management of pollu-
tion control;
(d) The extent of the need in the
basin for more detailed plans or coordi-
nated programs, including financial and
other institutional arrangements to
complement or carry out comprehensive
basin planning; and
(e) The existence and extent of sup-
port by public and private interests in
the basin for water pollution control
planning and implementation.
§ 35.225 Water pollution control com-
prehensive basin plan.
Each planning agency receiving a
water quality management planning
grant shall develop and submit to the
Regional Administrator within the ap-
proved project period, a water pollution
control comprehensive basin plan which:
(a) Is consistent with applicable Fed-
eral and State water quality standards
and objectives;
(b) Recommends such treatment
works and sewer systems as will provide
the most effective and economical means
of collection, storage, treatment, and
purification of wastes and recommends
means to encourage both municipal and
industrial use of such works and
systems;
(c) Recommends methods of ade-
quately financing those facilities as may
be necessary to implement the plan;
(d) Provides for continuing partici-
pation of public and private, State, in-
terstate, local, and (where appropriate)
international interests in water quality
management planning in the basin; and
(el Meets the requirements for water
pollution control planning set forth in
§ 35.150.
(f) Recommends administrative and
organization systems and procedures
necessary to implement the plan.
§ 35.230 Reports.
§ 35.230-1 Report of project expendi-
tures.
No later than 90 days following the
end of each budget period, the grantee
planning agency shall submit to the
Regional Administrator a report of proj-
ect expenditures.
§ 35.230-2 Interim plan.
The grant agreement may require the
submission of an interim water pollu-
tion control comprehensive basin plan
prior to the end of the project period.
§ 35.240 Continuation grant.
To be eligible for a continuation grant
for a second or third budget period with-
in the approved project period, the
grantee planning agency must:
(a) Having demonstrated satisfactory
performance during all previous budget
periods; and
(b) Submit no later than 30 days prior
to the end of the budget period a con-
tinuation application which includes a
detailed progress report, an estimated fi-
nancial statement for the current budget
period, a budget for the new budget pe-
riod, and an updated work plan revised
to account for actual progress accom-
plished during the current budget period.
SOLID WASTE PLANNING GRANTS
§ 35.300 Purpose.
These provisions establish and codify
policies and procedures for grants for
solid waste planning projects. These pro-
visions supplement the EPA general
grant regulations (40 CFR Part 30).
§ 35.301 Authority.
These provisions for solid waste plan-
ning grants are issued under section 207
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 3254a.
§ 35.302 Definitions.
As used herein, the following words and
terms shall have the meaning set forth
below;
§ 35.302-1 Inlet-municipal agency.
An agency established by two or more
municipalities with responsibility for
planning or administration of solid waste
disposal,
§ 35.302-2. Interstate agency.
An agency of two or more municipali-
ties in different States, or an agency es-
tablished by two or more States, with au-
thority to provide for the disposal of solid
wastes and serving two or more munici-
palities located in different States.
§ 35.302-3 Municipality.
A city, town, borough, county, parish,
district, or other public body created by
or pursuant to State law with responsi-
bility for the planning or administration
of solid waste disposal, or an Indian tribe.
§ 35.302-4 Solid waste.
Garbage, refuse, and other discarded
solid materials, including solid waste ma-
terials resulting from industrial, com-
mercial, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities, but does not
include solids or dissolved material in do-
mestic sewage or other significant pol-
lutants in water resources, such as silt,
dissolved or suspended solids in indus-
trial wastewater effluents, dissolved ma-
terials in irrigation return flows or other
common water pollutants.
§ 35.302-5 Solid waste disposal.
The collection, storage, treatment,
utilization, processing, or final disposal of
solid waste.
§ 35.302-6 State.
A State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Vir-
gin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
§ 35,304 Solid -waste planning projects.
Solid waste planning grants may be
awarded for either or both:
§ 35.304—1 Management planning.
Management planning concentrates on
alternative institutional arrangements
for regulating, operating, and financing
an environmentally sound solid waste
management system. Examples of man-
agement planning include:
(a) Local and regional planning which
results in the implementation of a self-
financed solid waste agency which will
adequately protect the environment.
(b) Local and regional planning which
results in the establishment of a solid
waste regulatory authority which may
then operate or franchise for collection,
processing, or disposal of solid waste in
an environmentally sound manner.
(c) Sta.te planning to develop a com-
prehensive State Solid Waste Manage-
ment Plan which results in State actions
to enable regional or local units to finance
and manage waste systems efficiently
and in a manner protective of the envi-
ronment, and recommends alternative
State regulatory, financial assistance,
and technical assistance roles with local
units.
§ 35.304-2 Special purpose planning.
Special purpose planning concentrates
on how specific components of a solid
waste management system can be devel-
oped or improved. Examples of special
purpose planning include:
(a) Local and regional planning which
results in closing open dumps and imple-
menting a new sanitary landfill, and is
consistent with any applicable compre-
hensive solid waste management plan.
(b) Local and regional planning which
results in improved collection service and
is consistent with any applicable com-
prehensive solid waste management plan.
(c) State planning which results in
the handling and processing of aban-
doned or discarded motor vehicles in an
environmentally sound manner.
(d) State planning which results in a
strategy and methodology for enforcing
existing- State bans on poor solid waste
management practices, e.g., , open
dumping.
§ 35.305 Grant limitations.
Solid waste planning grants shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(a) No grant may exceed 75 percent of
the allowable cost of a project pertaining
to an area which includes more than one
municipality.
(b) No grant may exceed 66% percent
of the allowable cost of a project per-
taining to an area which includes only
one municipality.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
137
-------
11634
RUIES AND REGULATIONS
(c> No project period may exceed 2
years, beginning with the project com-
mencement ciate approved at the time
of initial grant award.
§35.310 Eligibility.
To be eligible for a solid waste plan-
ning grant, an applicant must:
(a> Be a State, interstate, municipal,
intermunicipal agency, or organization
composed of public officials which is eli-
gible for assistance under section 70Kg)
of the Housing Act of 1S54 (40 U.S.C.
461Cg)); or
(b) Have been designated as the sole
agency responsible for carrying out the
purposes of section 207 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act for the area imro!ved. Desig-
nation of State agencies is by the Gov-
ernor: Provided, That local and regional
applicants, may be designated by the
State solid waste management agency
designated by the Governor.
§35.315 Application.
§ 35.315—1 Preapplicalion procedures.
(a) An informal preapplication should
be submitted to the appropriate Regional
Administrator prior to formal applica-
tion.
(b) Such preapplication may be in
letter form, must be brief (less than five
pages) and should generally include:
(1) A description of the applicant
agency and its jurisdictions;
(2) The proportion of the project de-
voted to management planning or special
purpose planning;
(3) The objectives of the project;
<4> A brief description of the ability
to meet mandatory criteria, the evalua-
tive criteria, and the legal requirements.
(5) Estimated total costs, schedule of
the project, expected outputs, and re-
quested Federal share.
(c) Preapplications will be reviewed
by the EPA Regional Office within 30
days of receipt to determine eligibility
and general technical merit.
(d) Preapplications should be devel-
oped in consultation with State solid
waste agencies and loctl agencies to be
affected by the project.
§ 35.315—2 Application requirements.
An application for a solid waste plan-
ning grant shall be submitted in accord-
ance with 40 CFR 30.301 through
30.301-5 to the appropriate Regional Ad-
ministrator and shall:
(a) Include a letter from the Gover-
nor or State solid waste management
agency designating the applicant as the
sole agency responsible for carrying out
the purposes of section 207 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act for the area involved.
Include a work plan which con-
tains the following information:
(1) Explanation and scheduling of the
tasks to be performed.
(2) Identification of which unit will
perform each task.
(3) Estimation of the costs per task.
(4) Identification of all subagree-
ments.
(c) Identify the steps necessary to
implement the recommendations of the
plan.
(d) Indicate provision for active in-
volvement of local officials, key mauasers
of publicly and privately owned solid
waste agencies and other affected agen-
cies (e.g., public works departments, san-
itation districts, existing utilities, etc.),
local officials, and the general public dur-
ing the entire planning process.
(e) Provide for the assignment of a
full time, qualified project director and
other appropriate stafl to the project. A
part-time project director may be ade-
quate for small rural projects.
(f) Schedule conformance to State
and local regulations governing solid
waste management, e.g., bans on open
dumping. Where regulations or ordi-
nances do not exist, assurance must be
given that action taken under the grant
will contribute to the elimination of
offensive practices harmful to the
environment.
(g) Assure that the planning of solid
waste disposal will be coordinated, with
and not duplicate other related State, in-
terstate, regional, and local planning
activities, including those financed in
part with funds pursuant to section 701
of the Housing Act of 1954 (40 TI.S.C.
461).
§ 35.320 Criteria for award.
In determining the desirability and ex-
tent of funding for a project and priority
of an application, the Rsgional Admin-
istrator will consider the following cri-
teria:
§ 35.320-1 AH applications.
(a) Priority will be given to manage-
ment planning projects over special pur-
pose planning projects.
For special purpose planning proj-
ects, cl) Priority will be given to States
which have completed, adopted, and im-
plemented a solid waste management
plan accepted by EPA.
(2) Priority will be given to applicants
who exhibit a high level of under-
standing of the problems to be addressed.
§ 35.320—3 Local and regional applica-
tions.
The following additional criteria will
apply to local and regional applications:
'a) Highest priority will be given
to applicants who can implement posi-
tive improvements in solid waste
management.
'b) Priority will be given to areawide
planning, that is, planning for an area
which is economically, socially, geo-
graphically, and environmentally related
and which is appropriate for purposes of
a solid waste planning project.
(c) H the applicant cannot directiy
implement recommendations of the plan.
(1) Priority among management plan-
ning projects will be given to applicants
who have the following capabilities.
Organisational capabilities. State
and local ordinances which allow alter-
native approaches to solid waste man-
agement (e.g., regional solid waste regu-
latory authority, solid waste public or
private utility, publicly owned and oper-
ated system).
(ii) Financing capabilities. State and
local ordinances which regulate solid
waste management functions, such as in-
cineration, land disposal, and collection.
(2) Priority among special purpose
planning projects will be given to appli-
cants who have:
(i) Shown that the special purpose
planning is coordinated with a completed
solid waste management plan.
(ii) Shown why special purpose plan-
ning is appropriate, if a comprehensive
solid waste management plan has not
been developed.
§ 35.330 Reports.
§ 35.330-1 Progress reports.
The grant agreement may require the
submission of a brief (less than five
pages) progress report after the end of
each quarter of the budget period. This
progress report must show in chart or in
a narrative format the progress achieved
on each task in relation to the approved
schedule and project milestones. Special
problems and delays should be explained.
The more detailed progress report in-
cluded with applications for continuation
grants may be used in lieu of a third-
quarter report for projects having 1-year
budget periods.
§ 35.330-2 Heport of project expendi-
tures.
No later than 90 days following the
end of each budget period, the grantee
planning agency shall submit to the Re-
gional Administrator a report of project
expenditures.
§ 35.330-3 Final report.
The grantee shall submit a final report
for approval prior to the end of the ap-
proved project period. The report shall
document project activities over the en-
tire period of grant support and shall
present in complete detail all tcchnica1.
aspects. negative and positive, toward the
achievement of the stated purposes and
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 37, NO. 1>2—FRIDAY, JUNF 9. 1972
138
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
11655
objectives, and shall include the plan de-
veloped for solution of the solid waste
management problems. The plan shall
be based upon the project findings, data
analyses, and conclusions, and shall in-
clude specific recommendations for ac-
tion and implementation. The final re-
port shall reflect or include EPA com-
ment. One set of reproducible copy
suitable for printing and such other cop-
ies as may be stipulated in the grant
agreement shall be promptly transmitted
to the Regional Administrator.
§ 35.340 Continuation grant.
To be eligible for a continuation grant
within the approved project period, the
grantee planning agency must:
(a) Have demonstrated satisfactory
performance during all previous budget
periods; and
(b) Submit no later than 30 days prior
to the end of the budget period a contin-
uation application which includes a de-
tailed progress report, an estimated
financial statement for the current
budget period, a budget for the new
budget period, and an updated work plan
revised to account for actual progress ac-
complished during the current budget
period.
Subpart B—Program Grants
§ 35.400 Purpose.
This subpart, which establishes and
codifies policy and procedures for air and
water pollution control program assist-
ance grants, supplements the EPA gen-
eral grant regulations and procedures
(40 CFR Part 30) and is applicable to
all program grants. These grants are
intended to aid programs for the preven-
tion and control of air or water pollution
at the State, interstate, or local level.
§ 35.400-1 Grants may be awarded to
air pollution control agencies and in-
terstate planning agencies.
Grants may be awarded to air pollu-
tion control agencies for the planning,
development, establishment, improve-
ment, and maintenance of programs for
the prevention and control of air pollu-
tion or implementation of national pri-
mary and secondary ambient air quality
standards. Grants may be awarded to
interstate planning agencies for the de-
velopment of implementation plans for
any interstate air quality control region.
§35.400-2 Grants may be awarded to
State and interstate water pollution
control agencies.
Grants may be awarded to State and
interstate water pollution control agen-
cies for the establishment and mainten-
ance of adequate programs for the
prevention and control of water pollu-
tion, including the training of personnel
of public agencies.
§ 35.401 Authority.
This subpart is issued under sections
105 and 106 of the dean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857e and 1857c-l,
and section 7 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act as amended, 33 U.S.C.
1157.
§ 35.405 Criteria for evaluation of pro-
gram objectives.
(a) Program descriptions or plans set
out in the application and submitted in
accordance with these regulations shall
be evaluated to determine:
(1) Consistency and compatibility of
goals and expected results with national
and regional programs in implementing
purposes and policies of the Clean Air
Act or the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended.
(2) Feasibility of achieving goals and
expected results in relation to existing
problems, program authority, organiza-
tion, resources, and procedures.
(b) Approval of the program descrip-
tion or plan developed pursuant to § 35.-
525 or § 35.575 will be based on the extent
to which the applicant's program satis-
fies the above criteria.
§ 35.410 Evaluation of program per-
formance.
(a) An annual program performance
evaluation shall be conducted by the ap-
propriate Regional Administrator and
the grantee to provide a basis for meas-
uring progress toward achievement of
the approved program objectives de-
scribed in the program description or
plan. The evaluation shall be limited to
the objectives, responsibilities, author-
ized functions, and other related activi-
ties set forth in the grantee's approved
program plan or description.
(b) The Regional Administrator shall
complete the program evaluation no
later than 120 days before the beginning
of a new budget period. The Regional
Administrator shall prepare a summary
of the joint evaluation findings. The
grantee shall be allowed 15 days to con-
cur or comment on the findings.
§ 35.415 Report of project expendi-
tures.
Within 90 days after the end of each
budget period, the grantee shall submit
to the Regional Administrator an annual
report of expenditures, which shall in-
clude all funds, Federal and non-Federal,
expended during the budget period.
§ 35.420 Payment.
Grant payments shall be made quar-
terly in advance. Grant payments shall
be made on a cumulative basis not to
exceed 30 percent of the grant amount
for the first quarter, 30 percent for the
second quarter, 20 percent for the third
quarter, and 20 percent for the fourth
quarter of the budget period. No pay-
ment shall be made prior to grant award.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM GRANTS
§ 35.501 Definitions.
As used herein, the following words
and terms shall have the meaning set
forth below.
§ 35.501-1 Air pollution.
The presence in the outdoor atmos-
phere of any dust, fumes, mist, smoke,
other particulate matter, vapor, gas,
odorous substances, or a combination
thereof, in sufficient quantities and of
such characteristics and duration as to
be, or likely to be, injurious to health or
welfare, animal or plant life, or property,
or as to interfere with the enjoyment
of life or property.
§ 35.501-2 Air pollution control agency.
Any of the following:
(a) State air pollution control agency.
A single State agency designated by the
Governor of that State as the State
agency with substantial responsibility for
the prevention and control of air pollu-
tion within the State;
(b) Interstate air pollution control
agency. An agency established by two
or more States and having substantial
powers or duties pertaining to the pre-
vention and control of air pollution;
(c) Municipal air pollution control
agency. A city, county, or other local
government agency responsible for en-
forcing ordinances or laws relating to the
prevention and control of air pollution.
(d) Intermunicipal air pollution con-
trol agency. An agency of two or more
municipalities located in the same State
or in different States and having sub-
stantial powers or duties pertaining to
the prevention and control of air pollu-
tion.
§ 35.501—3 Air pollution control pro-
gram.
A program for the prevention and con-
trol of air pollution or the implementa-
tion, maintenance, and enforcement of
national primary and secondary ambient
air duality standards.
§ 35.501-4 Air quality control region.
An area designated or established pur-
suant to section 107 of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. 1857C-2.
§ 35.501-5 Implementation plan.
The implementation plan, or revision
thereof, which has been approved under
section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 1857c-5(a», and which imple-
ments a national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard in a State
or portion thereof.
§ 35.501-6 Interstate air quality con-
trol region.
A geographic area, designated under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act, that in-
cludes areas in two or more States.
§ 35.501-7 Interstate planning agency.
An agency legally constituted under
the laws of two or more States having all
powers necessary to carry out a plan-
ning project in accordance with section
106 of the Clean Air Act, and designated
by the Governor of each State as the
official air pollution control planning
agency for the area of jurisdiction within
such State covered by the project.
§ 35.501-8 Maintenance program.
A program of an air pollution control
agency that as a minimum has attained
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
139
-------
1165G
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the level of operation set forth in
5 35.525-2.
g 35.501-9 Municipality.
A city, town, borough, county, parish,
district, or other public body created by
or pursuant to State law.
§ 33.501-10
lures.
Nonrecurrent expendi-
Expenditures which include:
(a) The amount by which the annual
cost of the purchases of individual items
of equipment, each costing over $2,500,
exceed the average of such purchases for
the 3 preceding fiscal years. Nonrecur-
rent equipment purchases may be depre-
ciated over the anticipated useful life of
the equipment.
(b) Costs of projects supported under
grants authorized by sections of the
Clean Air Act other than section 105.
§ 35.301—11 Prcniaintcnance program.
An undertaking to plan, develop, es-
tablish, or improve an air pollution con-
trol program having comprehensive ob-
jectives and schedules for growth and
which will qualify the undertaking as a
maintenance program at the end of the
project period.
§35.501—12 Program description.
A comprehensive narrative statement
of objectives for the prevention and con-
trol of air pollution; for the implementa-
tion, maintenance, and enforcement of
national primary and secondary ambient
air quality standards or for the develop-
ment of an implementation plan; and of
the proposed'measures to achieve these
objectives.
§ 35.501-13 State.
A State, the District of Columbia, toe
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Vir-
gin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
§ 35.505 Allocation of funds.
(a) Tentative aUoiaances. No later
than April i of each year, the Adminis-
trator will issue to each Regional Admin-
istrator a tentative regional allowance
for the next fiscal year. This tentative
allowance (planning target) will be based
on the amount of the appropriation re-
quested for the next fiscal year. The Re-
gional Administrator shall promptly no-
tify each State agency of the tentative
allotment Tor the State for the next
fiscal year.
fb) Final allowances. As soon as prac-
ticable, after funds are made available,
the Administrator will issue to each Re-
gional Administrator a final regional
allowance for State allotment of the
funds appropriated for each fiscal year.
(c> Determination. Regional allow-
ances and State allotments shall be the
sum of the amounts required to support
State and local programs which meet the
requirements of § 35.525 and shall, so
far as practicable, be determined by <1)
the population served by a program. (2)
the extent of the actual or potential
air pollution problem within a program's
area of jurisdiction, i3> the financial
need of the applicant, and (4) the impact
of the program's activities upon national
priorities and objectives existing at the
time. The allotment for any one State
may not exceed an amount equal to 10
percent of the funds appropriated for
the purposes of section 105(a) of the
Clean Air Act in any one fiscal year.
(d) Reallotment. By October 15 of
each year, or as soon thereafter as prac-
ticable, the Administrator will issue to
each Regional Administrator an allow-
ance derived from reallotment of prior
year funds.
§ 35.507 Federal assistance for agency
programs.
§ 35.507-1 Limitations on assistance.
(a) Control programs. Subject to the
availability of funds, the criteria con-
tained in I 35.520, and in accordance
with the schedule of Federal support
(§35.507-3), the Regional Administra-
tor may award a grant for:
(1) Premaintenance programs, (i)
Up to two-thirds of the allowable costs
for any air pollution control agency (see
§ 30.701 of this chapter).
(ii) Up to three-fourths of the allow-
able costs for any air pollution control
agency as defined in I 35.501-2 (a), (b),
and(d).
(2) Maintenance programs, (i) Up to
one-half of the allowable costs for any
air pollution control agency.
(ii) Up to three-fifths of the allow-
able costs for any air pollution control
agency as defined in § 35.501-2 (a), (b),
and(d).
(b) Interstate planning. Subject to
the availability of funds, and the criteria
contained in $ 35.520-2, the Regional
Administrator may award a grant to an
interstate planning agency as defined
in § 35.501-8 in an amount up to 95
percent of the estimated air quality
planning program costs for an initial 2-
year period. Thereafter, the Regional
Administrator is authorized to support
such interstate planning agencies in an
amount up to three-fourths of the esti-
mated air quality planning program
costs.
§35.507—2 Limitations on duration.
(a) Proiect period—(1) Premain-
tenance programs. The project period
for premaintenance programs shall be
a period of time expressed in years that
is mutually agreeable to the Regional
Administrator and the control agency.
but shall not exceed 6 years. The proj-
ect period shall be based on the pro-
gram goals identified in the program
description of the initial premainte-
nance grant application. The Regional
Administrator may extend the project
period once for a period of 1 year. Sub-
sequently, no further Federal support
will be available to the control agency
at the premaintenance program level.
(2) Maintenance programs. The proj-
ect period for maintenance programs
shall be unlimited provided that such
programs continue at a maintenance
level. Federal support may be suspended
or terminated if & maintenance program
ceases to qualify under § 35.525-2.
(3) Interstate planning. The project
period for interstate planning shall be a
period of time expressed in years that is
mutually agreeable to the Regional Ad-
ministrator and the intestate agency.
but shall not exceed 3 years. The project
period shall be bas^d on the program
goals identified in the program descrip-
tion of the planning grant application.
The Regional Administrator may extend
the project period once for a period of
1 year.
(b) Budget periods. The budget period
of any grant awarded to support a pre-
maintenance or maintenance program
or an interstate planning agency shall be
for a period of 12 months and shall be
coterminous with the grantee agency's
fiscal year.
§ 35.507-3 Schedule of Federal sup-
port.
Type, agency
Municipal » (5 35.507-
State, Intermunicipa, >nd
interstate » (S35.!W-
l(a)(l)(ii)).«
Municipal' (§35.507-
State, tntermunlcipal and
Interstate. « ({35.507-
Municlpsl ((35.507-
State . intcrmunktrial and
Year of Maximum
support > federal
funds '
(P<
2 .
3
4
All over 4., .
2
3
4
All over 4., -
1
2
3
4
4
6
'7 ...
1
2
3
4
6 ...
* 7 ...
AIL .. .
AH.
crtxnft
100
75
W
25
0
200
ISO
100
50
0
200
SCO
150
100
75
50
'25
300
300
200
ISO
KO
too
ISO
,
Interstate <43i.SC7-
> Year of support starting May 1,1972, or later.
» Eipressed as a percent of local fnnds.
» For agencies which have received Federal support,
under section 105 of the Act, for three or more complete
budget periods between July 1,1968, and June 30, 1?"'.
• For ageacies which have received Fedora', support
under section 105 of the Act. for less than three complete
badftet periods between July 1,196S, and June 30, 1972.
• Provided 1 year extension is granted by the Regional
Administrator.
• Premaintenanco type support.
' Maintenance type support.
§ 35.510 Grant amount.
§ 35.510—1 Determination.
(a) Control agencies. In determining
the amount of support for a control
agency, the Regional Administrator will
consider: (1) The functions, duties, and
obligations assigned to the program by
any applicable implementation plan;
<2) the feasibility of the program in view
of the resources to be made available to
maintain a total program effort; (3) the
probable or estimated total cost of the
program in relation to its expected ac-
complishments; (4) the extent of the
actual or potential pollution problem;
and (5) the population served within
the agency's jurisdiction.
(b) Interstate planning agencies. In
determining the amount of support for
an interstate planning agency, the Re-
gional Administrator will, pursuant to
FEDERAL REGISTEK, VOL 37, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
140
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
11657
section 106 of the Act, consider the ex-
tent of the actual or potential air pollu-
tion problem in relation to: (1) The need
to revise applicable implementation
plans, or portions thereof, to insure the
timely achievement of national primary
or secondary ambient air quality stand-
ards; (2) the development of new imple-
mentation plans; and he will also con-
sider (3) the comments of the appro-
priate governmental officials; (4) the
feasibility of the project with regard to
the resources available; and (5) the esti-
mated cost of the project compared to its
probable accomplishments.
§ 35.510-2 Limitations.
(a) The amount of a grant award to
support an air pollution control agency
premaintenance or maintenance program
shall be subject to the grant limits set
forth in § 35.507-1 in accordance with
the schedule of Federal support in
i 35.507-3.
(b) Whenever a final allowance is not
sufficient to meet the funding' require-
ments of qualified air pollution control
agencies, the Regional Administrator
shall give priority to continuation sup-
port.
(c) Whenever funds available are in-
sufficient to continue support for pro-
grams entitled to priority, an agency
shall be consulted prior to any reduction
in the amount of Federal support.
(d) Grants shall be awarded only from
appropriations available at the time of
award.
§ 35.515 Eligibility.
§ 35.515—1 Control programs.
Any air pollution control agency that
meets the criteria for award prescribed
In i 35.520-1 shall be eligible for an air
pollution control program assistance
grant.
§ 35.515-2 Interstate planning.
Any interstate planning agency that
meets the criteria for award prescribed
in § 35.520-2 shall be eligible for an air
quality program planning grant author-
ized by section 106 of the Clean Air Act.
§ 35.520 Criteria for award.
§ 35.520-1 Control programs.
(a) No grant may be awarded unless
the grant application includes a program
description which meets the requirements
of f 35.525 and which has been approved
by the Regional Administrator.
(b) No grant may be awarded until the
Regional Administrator has consulted
with the official designated by the Gov-
ernor or Governors of the State or States
affected by such award pursuant to sec-
tion 105 (b) of the Clean Air Act. Such
consultation should consider the role of
the applicant in the enforcement of any
applicable implementation plan and con-
firm that the project will be consistent
with the objectives of the State air pollu-
tion control program,
(c) No grant may be awarded during
any fiscal year when the estimated recur-
rent expenditures of non-Federal funds
lor the program will be less than the re-
current expenditures of non-Federal
funds were for such programs during the
preceding fiscal year.
(d) No grant may be awarded unless
the applicant provides assurance satis-
factory to the Regional Administrator
that such grant will be used to supple-
ment and, to the extent practicable, in-
crease the State, local, or other non-
Federal funds that would in the absence
of such grant be made available for such
program, and that Federal assistance will
in no event supplant such State, local,
or other non-Federal funds.
(e) Not more than 10 percent of the
total of funds appropriated or allocated
for the purposes of section 105 with
respect to any air quality control
region, or portion thereof, for which
there is an applicable implementa-
tion plan, unless the air pollution control
agency applicant has substantial respon-
sibility for carrying out such applicable
implementation plan. "Substantial re-
sponsibility" shall include, but not be
limited to, adequate legal authority and
resource capability for carrying out the
effort required to implement and meet
the goals of an approved Implementation
plan in an agency's geographic area of
jurisdiction independently or in concert
with other air pollution control agencies.
(g) No grant may be awarded to any
interstate or Intel-municipal air pollution
control agency unless the applicant pro-
vides assurance satisfactory to the Re-
gional Administrator in the grant appli-
cation narrative description that the
agency provides for adequate representa-
tion of appropriate State, interstate,
local, and (when appropriate) interna-
tional interests in the air quality con-
trol region and further that the agency
has the capability of developing and
implementing a comprehensive air qual-
ity plan for the air quality control re-
gion. Such a plan shall include (when
found appropriate by the Regional Ad-
ministrator) a recommended system of
alerts to avert and reduce the risk oi
situations in which there may be im-
minent and serious danger to the public
health or welfare from air pollutants
and the various aspects relevant to the
establishment of air quality standards
for such air quality control region, in-
cluding the concentration of industries,
other commercial establishments, popu-
lation and naturally occurring factors
which shall affect such standards.
§ 35.520—2 Interstate planning.
No grant may be awarded pursuant to
35.507-1 (b) unless such agency is desig-
nated by the Governors of the affected
States, is capable of recommending to
the Governors plans for implementation
of national primary and secondary ambi-
ent air quality standards and includes
representation from the States and ap-
propriate political subdivisions within
the affected interstate air quality con-
trol regions.
§ 35.525 Program requirements.
Portions of the program description
may incorporate by reference appropri-
ate parts of an applicable implementa-
tion plan.
§ 35.525—1 Premaintenance program.
A program description for an air pol-
lution control agency premaintenance
program shall include, but not be limited
to, the following:
(a) A description of the extent of the
air pollution problem within the appli-
cant's geographical area of jurisdiction.
(b) A comprehensive statement of ap-
plicant's objectives for the prevention
and control of air pollution or implemen-
tation of national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards, and of
the proposed means to achieve these
objectives.
(c) A description of the applicant's
existing program and of the changes that
are to be initiated during the project
period, including but not limited to those
procedures necessary to develop or exe-
cute any applicable implementation plan.
Items that should be specifically in-
cluded as part of the comprehensive de-
scription are:
(DA description of the pertinent ex-
isting legal authority including appli-
cable statutes, ordinances, rules, and
regulations.
(2> A description of proposed, pending,
or requested changes to the existing legal
authority.
(3) A description of the organization,
methodology, and resources utilized in
the program. Resources should include
administrative and technical support,
.personnel, facilities, equipment, staff,
and other pertinent resources; and of
any additional resources required to meet
the program objectives or execute any
applicable implementation plan.
(4) A description of any intergovern-
mental agreements and/or working rela-
tionships for carrying out programs.
(d) Regulations for the prevention and
control of air pollution which are at least
as stringent as those contained within
any applicable implementation plan
covering sources under the jurisdiction
of the applicant agency.
(e) Provisions for visible emission
limitations adequate for the prevention
and control of particulate matter from
all sources over which the applicant has
jurisdiction and provide adequate mea-
sures for the prevention and control of
open burning within the geographic area
of the applicant's jurisdiction.
(f) A certification by the official re-
sponsible for application preparation
that the program description as sub-
mitted has been officially adopted by that
program.
(g) If no applicable implementation
plan exists, the program description must
have been determined by the appropri-
ate official designated by the Governor
NO. 112—pt. ra-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 37, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
141
-------
11658
RULES AND RE6UIATIONS
of the State, to "be designed to prevent,
and control air pollution within the geo-
graphic area of responsibility of the ap-
plicant in a manner consistent with the
program of the State air pollution con-
trol agency.
(h) If there exists an applicable im-
plementation plan for any air quality
control region within which the pro-
gram's geographical area of jurisdiction
is partially or totally located, the pro-
gram description must be designed to
prevent and control air pollution within
the geographical area and scope of re-
sponsibility of such applicant in a man-
ner consistent with such applicable im-
plementation plan.
fc 35.525-2 Maintenance program.
A program description of an air pollu-
tion control agency maintenance pro-
gram shall satisfy the requirements of
J 35.525-1 and shall meet the following
additional requirements, either alone or
to cooperation with other agencies within
its geographic area of jurisdiction. The
program must:
(a) Provide a description of the orga-
nization, program support activities and
staffing skills that are consistent with
stated objectives, environmental needs
and solutions.
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
11659
any other agency of two or more States,
having substantial powers or duties per-
taining to the control of water pollution.
§ 35.551—4 Per capita income.
With respect to any State, the average
of the per capita income of such State
for the three most recent consecutive
years for which satisfactory data axe
available from the Department of Com-
merce; except that, in the absence of
such satisfactory data, the per capita
income of Alaska shall be deemed to
equal the average per capita income of
all the States in the continental United
States and the per capita incomes of
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall
be deemed to equal the per capita income
of the State having the lowest per capita
income of the continental United States.
§ 35.551-5 Plan.
Any plan, including revisions thereof,
for the prevention and control of water
pollution submitted by a State water
pollution control agency or interstate
agency pursuant to § 35.575;
§ 35.551-6 State.
A State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Vir-
gin Islands, and Guam.
§ 35.551-7 State water pollution control
agency.
The State agency charged with pri-
mary responsibility of enforcing State
laws relating to the abatement of water
pollution.
§ 35.555 Allocation of funds.
§ 35.555-1 Notification of funding.
(a) Tentative allowances. No later
than April 1 of each year, the Adminis-
trator will issue to each Regional Admin-
istrator a tentative regional allowance
for the next fiscal year. This tentative
allowance (planning target) will be based
on the amount of the appropriation re-
quested for the next fiscal year. The Re-
gional Administrator shall promptly no-
tify each State and interstate agency of
its tentative allotment for the next fiscal
year.
(b) Final allowances. As soon as prac-
ticable after funds are made available,
the Administrator will issue to each Re-
gional Administrator a final regional
allowance for State and interstate allot-
ments from the funds appropriated for
each fiscal year.
(c) Reallotment. On October 15 of
each year, or as soon thereafter as prac-
ticable, the Administrator will issue to
each Regional Administrator an allow-
ance derived from reallocation of prior
year funds.
(d> Computation of regional allow-
ances. Tentative and final regional al-
lowances shall be the sum of the tenta-
tive or final State and interstate allot-
ments within each EPA region.
§ 35.553-2 Allotments to Stales.
Funds appropriated for any fiscal year
for grants to States shall be allotted
among the several States on the basis of
$12,000 for each State and the balance
on the basis of the following factors:
(1) Two-thirds in the ratio that the
product of the population of each State
and the reciprocal of its per capita in-
come bears to the sum of the correspond-
ing products for all States.
(2) One-sixth on the basis of the ratio
of the population density of a State to
the population density of all the States.
(3) One-sixth on the basis of the ratio
of the number of industrial establish-
ments discharging industrial wastes in
each State to the number of such estab-
lishments in all the States. The number
of such establishments shall be deter-
mined on the basis of the latest available
"wet industries" data provided by the
Department of Commerce.
g 35.555-3 Allotments to interstate
agencies.
(a) Funds appropriated for any fiscal
year for grants to interstate agencies
shall be allotted among the several inter-
state agencies on the basis of the follow-
ing factors:
(1) Two-thirds in the ratio that the
product of the population of the area
served by the interstate agency and the
reciprocal of the average per capita in-
come of the interstate agency for the
three most recent consecutive years bears
to the sum of the corresponding products
for all the interstate agencies. For this
purpose, per capita income of an inter-
state agency shall mean the total gross
income of all the States comprising such
interstate agency divided by the total
population of all the States comprising
such interstate agency.
(2) One-sixth on the basis of the ratio
of the average of the population densities
of the States comprising each interstate
agency area to the sums of the average
of the population densities of each inter-
state agency area.
(3) One-sixth on the basis of the ratio
of the number of industrial establish-
ments discharging industrial wastes in
the States comprising the interstate
agency to the number of such establish-
ments in all the interstate agency areas.
The number of such "wet industries"
establishments shall be determined on
the basis of the latest available data pro-
vided by the Department of Commerce.
§ 35.555-4 Population computation.
For purposes of this section, popula-
tion shall be determined on the basis of
the most recent Department of Com-
merce estimates available at the time of
computation.
§ 35.557 Federal share.
§ 35.557-1 Determination of Federal
share for States.
For any State the Federal share shall
be 100 per centum less that percentage
which bears the same ratio to 50 per
centum as the per capita income of such
State bears to the per capita income of
the continental United States (excluding
Alaska), except that the Federal share
shall in no case be more than 66% per
centum or less than 33% per centum, and
the Federal share for Hawaii and Alaska
shall be 50 per centum, and for Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands, shall be
66% per centum.
§ 35.557-2 Determination of Federal
share for interstate agencies.
For any interstate agency the "Federal
share" shall be 100 per centum less that
percentage which bears the same ratio
to 50 per centum as the average per
capita income of the States comprising
such interstate agencies bears to the per
capita income of the continental United
States (excluding Alaska), except that
the Federal share in no case shall be
more than 66% per centum or less than
33 Va per centum and shall be promul-
gated on the basis of the same data used
for determining the "Federal share" for
any State.
§ 35.560 Grant amount.
§ 35.560-1 Determination.
Each State and interstate agency shall
receive a grant from its final allotment
in an amount not in excess of the ap-
proved Federal share of the allowable
cost of carrying out its approved plan,
including the cost of training personnel
for State and local water pollution con-
trol work and administering the plan.
§ 35.560-2 Limitation.
When a State or interstate agency
matching share percentage rate, when
added to the Federal share, is less than
100 percent, the grant amount shall be
reduced until the sum of the Federal
share and matching share percentage
rate equals 100 percent.
§ 35.560-3 Reduction of grant amount.
The grantee must submit a complete
application on or before June 1 preced-
ing the fiscal year for which the program
application is prepared. If the State or
interstate agency does not meet this
deadline, the grant amount will be re-
duced one-sixth of the first 6 months
available allotment for each full month's
delay.
§ 35.563 Grant limits and duration.
Following approval of the plan, the
budget period of the grant shall be the
entire fiscal year and Federal assistance
shall not exceed the allotment limits
specified in § 35.555 and shall be within
the Federal share limits of § 35.557.
§ 35.565 Eligibility.
A grant may be awarded to a State or
interstate water pollution control agency
which has submitted a plan meeting the
requirements of § 35.575: Provided, how-
ever, That such plan has been approved
by the appropriate Regional Adminis-
trator(s).
§ 35.575 Plan requirements.
A plan shall:
(a) Provide for administration or for
the supervision of administration of the
plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan sub-
mitted by an interstate agency, by such
interstate agency;
(b) Provide that such agency will make
such reports, in such form and contain-
ing such information, as the Regional
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 37,
112—fRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
-------
11GGO
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Administrator may from "time to time
reasonably require to carry out Ms func-
tions under Uiis Act;
(c) Bet forth the plans, policies, and
methods to be followed In carrying out
the State Guam shall be deemed
to equal the per capita income of the
State having the lowest per capita in-
come in the continental United States.
For purposes of this section, population
shall be determined on the basis of the
official population figures of the latest
decennial census for \vliich figures are
available as certified by the Secretary of
Commerce.
(b) Funds in excess of'$100 million
appropriated for any fiscal year, except
as otherwise provided by law, shsill be
allotted by the Administrator as soon ts
practicable in the ratio that the popula-
tion of each Stale bears to the popu-
lation of all the States.
(c) Sums available for allocation to
States based on eligibility for reimburse-
ment, severe local and basinwide water
pollution problems, or other factors shall
be divided between such purposes in such
proportion.? as the Administrator may
determine and shall be allotted among
the States in accordance with the proce-
dures and provisions set forth for re-
allotmsnt of .unobligated funds (see
I 35.815-2). Allocation shall be made at
such time or times as may be practicable.
(d) Sums allotted to a State under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
which are not obligated within the time
period specified by law shall be reallotted
in accordance with the reallotment pro-
visions contained in § 35.815-2.
(e) At least 50 per centum of the first
$100 million appropriated for each fiscal
year beginning on or after July 1, 1965,
shall be used for the construction of ,
treatment works serving municipalities
of 125,000 population or under.
(f) The allotment of a State, includ-
ing reallotments, shall be available, in
accordance with the provisions of this
subpart, for payments to meet the cost
of construction of treatment works in
such State for which Federal grants have
been approved.
§ 35.815-2 ReaUolment.
(a) Reallotment of unobligated funds
(see §35.815-1 (d)) will be made within
90 days following their availability for
reallotment, or as soon thereafter as
practicable, as follows :
(1) Except as set forth in paragraph
(b) of this section, unobligated funds
shall be reallotted among the States
having projects eligible for reimburse-
ment under the provisions of section
8(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act based on the ratio which each
State's reimbursement eligibility for all
the States: Provided, That each State to
receive any such reallotment shall first
provide such assurances as the Admin-
istrator deems appropriate to assure that
such funds shall be applied on an equi-
table pro rata basis with respect to such
work in place.
(2) If any funds remain unobligated,
such funds shall be reallotted among the
States based on the ratio that each
State's remaining eligibility for reim-
bursement bears to the total remaining
reimbursement eligibility for all States:
Provided, That each State to be entitled
to any such reallotment shall, within 30
days following the date on which fund-r,
become available for reallotment, or as
,?oon thereafter as practicable, provide
a statement satisfactory to the Adminis-
trator listing projects eligible for reim-
bursement, which statement shall also
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9,. 1972
144
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
11661
specify the manner in which any peal-
lotted funds should be applied towards
the projects so listed.
(3) Prior to making any reallotment
under subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this
paragraph, the Administrator may de-
termine whether any part of the unob-
ligated funds should be applied in situa-
tions of special need to meet severe local
and basinwide pollution problems in
order to promote the purposes of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
most effectively. In making such deter-
mination, the Administrator shall apply
the following criteria: (i) The extent of
degradation of water quality; (ii) the
extent of the financial need; (ill) the
extent to which degradation is attribu-
ted to untreated or inadequately treated
waters of municipalities; (iv) the extent
to which facilities to be constructed will
contribute to the enhancement of the en-
vironment; (v) such other factors as the
Administrator considers relevant. The
Administrator shall reallot such funds to
any State in which such special needs
exist on such basis as he may deem most
advisable: Provided, That each State to
receive any such reallotment shall first
provide such assurances as the Adminis-
trator may require that such funds
should be applied to eligible projects
selected by the Administrator to meet
such needs.
(b) Whenever a State has funds sub-
ject to reallotment, prior to such reallot-
ment, additional grants may be made
for any projects in that State where the
Administrator finds that the need for the
projects is due in part to any Federal
institution or Federal construction ac-
tivity which has resulted in an influx of
federally connected personnel and have
added to the applicant's requirements
for sewage treatment works. Such addi-
tional grants shall be limited to addi-
tional identifiable costs of construction
attributable to such Federal institution
or Federal construction activity. "Fed-
eral institution" shall mean any Fed-
eral institution, reservation, installation,
base, project, or other similar Federal
establishment used by the Federal Gov-
ernment primarily for the performance
of functions other than the provision of
services to the area in which such estab-
lishment is situated. "Federal construc-
tion activity" shall mean the construc-
tion of any "Federal institution" as
herein defined.
(1) Applicants for additional grants
must support their claims that the need
for their projects is due in part to any
Federal institution or Federal construc-
tion activity by showing that at least 5
percent cf the popuJation contributing
wastes to the project are, as of the date
of filing the application for the addi-
tional grant, jn oi'e or mere of the fol-
low tig catcg-ones:
u) Federal personnel and their fami-
lies residing on or at a Federal institu-
tion, as well as occupants, patients, and
inmates of such institutions:
(ii) Federal personnel and their fami-
lies working on or at, but residing at
otner than, a Federal institution;
(iii) Non-Federal personnel and their
families working on Federal construction
projects involving a Federal institution.
(2) Necessary supporting information
submitted by applicants shall be used as
the basis for computing a project's addi-
tional grant entitlement as follows:
For subdivision (i) of para-
graph (b) (1), 100 percent of the product
of the per capita cost of the project and
the number represented in this category;
(ii) For either subdivision (ii) or (iii)
of paragraph (b)(l), 50 percent of
the product of the per capita, cost of the
project and the number represented by
such category;
(iii) Provided that in any case the ad-
ditional grant entitlement with respect
to any category shall be reduced by the
amount of any Federal contribution by
any other Federal agency toward the
capital cost of the approved project
made on behalf of such category. The
total of the sums of the above calcula-
tions shall be the maximum entitlement
of an individual project for an addi-
tional grant.
(3) If the total of all entitlements for
additional grants exceeds the funds
available to a State for such grants, the
available funds will be prorated over all
eligible applicants for such grants in the
State.
(4) In any instance where a grantee
community claims its need for a project
is due hi part to any Federal Institution
or federally construction activity, but
because of exceptional circumstances is
not measurable by the criteria set out
above, a request for special considera-
tion may be made pursuant to the de-
viation procedures (see 40 CFB 30.1001).
(5) In no event shall any additional
grant be made in an amount which, to-
gether with the amount of the basic
grant and, as appropriate, other Federal.
and State contributions, will exceed the
total eligible project cost.
§ 35.820 Grant limitations.
§ 35.820-1 Exception*.
No grant shall be made for any proj-
ect in an amount exceeding 30 per cen-
tum of the estimated reasonable cost
of the project, except that:
(a) The percentage limitation shall be
increased to a maximum of 40 per cen-
tum if the State agrees to pay not less
than 30 per centum of the cost of all
projects for which Federal grants are to
be made from the same fiscal year's al-
location, or
(b) The percentage limitation shall be
increased to a maximum, of 50 per cen-
tum if the State agrees to pay not less
than 25 per centum of the cost of all
projects for which Federal grants are to
be made from the same fiscal year's al-
location and enforceable water quality
standards have been established for the
waters into which the project dis-
charges, in accordance with section
I0vc> of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in the case of interstate
waters, and under State law in the case
of intrastate waters.
(c) The amount of a grant may be
increased by an additional 10 per centum
of such grant for any project which has
been certified by an official State, metro-
politan, or regional planning agency
empowered under State or local laws or
interstate compact to perform metro-
politan or regional planning for a metro-
politan area within which such grant is
to be used, or other agency or instru-
mentality designated for such purposes
by the Governor (or Governors in -the
case of interstate planning) as being in
conformity with the comprehensive plan
developed or in process of development
for such metropolitan area, "Metropoli-
tan area" means either (1) a standard
metropolitan statistical area as estab-
lished by the Office of Management and
Budget except as may be determined by
the President as not being appropriate
for the purposes hereof, or (2) any urban
area, including those surrounding areas
that form an economic and socially re-
lated region, taking into consideration,
such factors as present and future popu-
lation trends and patterns of urban
growth, location of transportation facili-
ties and systems, and distribution of
industrial, commercial, residential, gov-
ernmental, institutional, and other
activities, which in the opinion of the
President lends itself as being appropri-
ate for the purposes hereof.
§ 35.825 Application for grant.
% 35.825-1 Preapplication procedure*.
Preapplicatlon assistance regarding
construction grants for waste water
treatment works, including the necessary
application forms, should be obtained
from the State water pollution control
agency or the appropriate EPA regional
office.
§ 35.825-2 Formal application.
An application for waste water treat-
ment works construction grants shall be
submitted to the State water pollution
control agency. Upon approval of the
application and certification of the proj-
ect for priority, the State water pollution
control agency will transmit the appli-
cation to the appropriate EPA regional
office.
§ 35.830 Determining the desirability of
projects.
In determining the desirability of
treatment works projects, the State
water pollution control agency and the
regional administrator shall give con-
sideration to the following:
(a) The relation of the estimated cost
of the project, including operation and
maintenance, to the public Interest and
to the necessity for the project;
(b) The propriety of Federal aid" in
construction of the project, which will be
determined on the basis of one or more
of the following criteria:
(1) Effective control. Whether the
project effectively contributes to the
control of pollution of the waters into
which the project discharges its treated
water.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1973
145
-------
11662
(2) International treaty obligations.
Whether the project is required to con-
trol pollution in meeting international
treaty obligations or agreements.
(3) Federal impact. Whether the proj-
ect involves a pollution problem affected
by (i) Federal installations contributing
to the total municipal waste loadings:
The feasibility of utilizing avail-
able facilities; and,
(f) The probability that the project
•will be constructed and put into opera-
tion within a reasonable time.
§ 35.835 Criteria for award.
In addition to the evaluation required
pursuant to J 35.830, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall determine whether the
following criteria are met, prior to the
award of the grant:
f 35.835—1 State plan and priority.
The project must be in conformity
with the State water pollution control
plan submitted pursuant to the provi-
sions of section 7 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and must be certi-
fied by the State Water Pollution Con-
trol Agency as entitled to priority over
other eligible projects on the basis of
financial as well as water pollution con-
trol needs; except that in the case of
additional grants as provided for in the
case of impact grants (see S 35.815-2(b>)
and for conformity with metropolitan
plans (see 5 35.820-1 (c», no additional
State certification of priority shall be
required for the project receiving such
an additional grant.
§35.835-2 Basin control.
No grant may be awarded unless
the Regional Administrator determines,
based on information furnished to him by
the appropriate State or interstate
agency having jurisdictional responsi-
bilities for the area of concern, that the
project is included in an effective current
RULES AND REGULATIONS
basinwidc plan for pollution abatement
in accordance with applicable water
quality standards. Such basinwide plan
must be in conformity with the require-
ments set forth in § 35.105-1.
§ 35.835-3 Regional and metropolitan
plan.
No grant may be awarded unless the
Regional Administrator determines that
the project is included in an effective
metropolitan or regional plan developed
or in the process of development, and
certified by the Governor or his dcsignee
as being the official pollution abatement
plan developed or in the process of de-
velopment for the metropolitan area or
region within which the project is pro-
posed to be constructed. In the case of
an interstate metropolitan or regional
area, the plan shall be certified by the
respective Governors or their designees.
Such plan must meet the requirements
set forth in §35.105-2.
§ 35.835—4 Adequacy of treatment.
No grant may be awarded unless the
applicant provides assurance satisfactory
to the Regional Administrator that the
proposed project is designed to result in
an operable treatment works, or part
thereof, which will adequately treat
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid
nature in order to abate, control, or pre-
vent water pollution. Such assurance
must certify that the treatment works or
part thereof, if constructed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with
plans, designs, and specifications will re-
sult in: (a) Substantially complete re-
moval of all floatable and settleable ma-
terials; removal of not less than 85
percent of 5-day biochemical oxygen de-
mand of equivalent; (c) substantially
complete reduction of pathogenic micro-
organisms on a continuous basis; and .s-
tory to the Regional Administrate? that
the treatment works will be intir-tabieQ
and operated in accordance •with such
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 5Z.,NO. HZ—FRIDAY, JUNE », 1972
ffc'
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
11663
requirements as the Administrator may
publish from time to time concerning
methods, techniques and practices for
economic, and efficient, effective opera-
tion and maintenance of treatment
works. Such provision shall include, but
not be limited to, (a) an operation and
maintenance manual, including emer-
gency readiness plan, (b) properly
trained personnel, and (c) operational
reports.
§ 35.835—8 Operation during construc-
tion.
Where an existing waste treatment
facility is to be modified or enlarged, no
grant may be awarded unless the appli-
cant provides assurance satisfactory to
the Regional Administrator that the
treatment works will be operated during
construction to obtain optimum treat-
ment of sewage.
§ 35.835—9 Postconstruction inspection.
No grant may be awarded unless the
State Water Pollution Control Agency
provides assurance satisfactory to the
Regional Administrator that the State
will inspect the treatment works not less
frequently than annually for the 3 years
after such treatment works is con-
structed and periodically thereafter to
determine whether such treatment works
is operated and maintained in an effi-
cient, economic, and effective manner.
§ 35.840 Supplemental grant conditions.
In addition to the EPA general grant
conditions (Appendix A to this sub-
chapter), each wastewater treatment
works construction grant shall be subject
to the following conditions:
(a) All measures required to minimize
water pollution to affected waters shall
be undertaken in the planning and con-
struction processes of the* treatment
plant to be financed in part by the Fed-
eral grant. To achieve this end, regard
shall be given to the selection of a plant-
site compatible with the protection of
the natural environment and the water-
shed natural cover, engineering and work
measures to assure minimal siltation and
bank erosion from the construction proc-
ess, and other measures which reduce
water pollution to a minimum.
(b) Construction work will be per-
formed by the lump sum (fixed) price
or unit price contract method; adequate
methods of advertising for and obtaining
sealed competitive bids will be employed
prior to award of the construction con-
tract; and the award of the contract will
be made to the responsible bidder sub-
mitting the lowest responsive bid, which
shall be determined without regard to
State or local law whereby preference is
given on factors other than the amount
of the bid.
(c) The project will not be advertised
or placed on the market for bidding
until the final plans and specifications
have been approved by the Regional
Administrator, and the appropriate
State water pollution control agency and
the applicant has been so notified.
(d) On construction contracts ex-
ceeding $100,000. the contractor must
furnish performance and payment
bonds, each of which shall be in an
amount not less than 100 per centum
of the contract price. Construction con-
tracts less than $100,000 shall follow
the State or local requirements relating
to bid guarantees, performance bonds,
and payment bonds. In all cases, the
contractor must maintain during the
construction phase of the contract ade-
quate fire and extended coverage, work-
men's compensation, public liability and
property damage insurance. Proceeds of
the performance and payment bonds
and fire and extended coverage insur-
ance shall, in the discretion of the Re-
gional Administrator, be applied to meet
the cost of construction of the project.
(e) The construction of the project,
including the letting of contracts in con-
nection therewith, shall conform to the
applicable requirements of State, terri-
torial, and local laws and ordinances ex-
cept as provided in I 35.840 (b) and (d).
(f> Any construction contract must
provide that representatives of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency and the
State will have access to the work when-
ever it is in preparation or progress and
that the contractor will provide proper
facilities for such access and inspection.
The contract must also provide that the
Grants Officer, the Comptroller General
of the United States, or any authorized
representative shall have access to any
books, documents, papers, and records
of the contractor which are pertinent to
the project for the purpose of making
audit, examination, excerpts, and trans-
scriptions thereof.
(g) The grantee will provide and
maintain competent and adequate engi-
neering supervision and inspection for
the project to insure that the construc-
tion conforms with the approved plans
and specifications.
(h) The applicant will demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Regional Admin-
istrator that he has or will have a fee
simple or such other estate or interest
in the site of the project, and rights
of access, as the Regional Administra-
tor finds sufficient to assure undisturbed
use and possession for the purpose of
construction and operation lor the esti-
mated life of the project; and in the
case of projects serving more than one
municipality, that the participating
communities have such interests or
rights as the Regional Administrator
finds sufficient to assure their undis-
turbed utilization of the project for the
estimated life of the project.
(i) The grantee agrees to construct
the project or cause it to be constructed
in accordance with the application and
plans and specifications approved by the
Regional Administrator.
(j) In addition to the notification of
project changes pursuant to 40 CPR
30.900-1, a copy of any construction con-
tract, or modifications thereof, and of
revisions to plans and specifications must
be submitted to the Regional Adminis-
trator through the State water pollution
control agency.
(k) In addition to the notification of
project changes required pursuant to 40
CPR 30.900-1, prior approval by the
Regional Administrator and the State
water pollution control agency is re-
quired for project changes which (i) sub-
stantially alter the design and scope of
the project, (ii) alter the type of treat-
ment to be provided, (iii) substantially
alter the location, size, capacity, or qual-
ity of any major items of equipment; or
(iv) increase the amount of Federal
funds needed to complete the project:
Provided, That prior EPA approval is not
required for changes to correct errors,
minor changes, or emergency changes.
No approval or disapproval of a project
change pursuant to 40 CFR 30.900 or this
section shall commit or obligate the
United. States to any increase in the
amount of the grant or payments there-
under, but shall not preclude submission
or consideration of a request for a grant
amendment pursuant to 40 CPR 30.901.
§ 35.845 Payments.
Installment payments of the Federal
grant shall be made upon request of the
applicant and shall be based on the cost
of the work performed, materials and
equipment furnished, and services ren-
dered in connection with an approved
project. Payments will generally be made
in four installments, except as the
Regional Administrator may otherwise
direct. Final payment will be made only
after a final inspection by an EPA repre-
sentative upon completion of the project.
§ 35.850 Reimbursement [Reserved].
[PR Doc.72-8683 Filed 6-8-72;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37 -NO* 112—FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1972
147
-------
•5829
TM« soetion at the FEDERAL REGISTER coniains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effpc* mpit of which are
keyed to and codified In the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regufations is sold 6y the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER Issue of each month.
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SWBCHAPrER D—GRANTS
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Grants f authorizes
Fbderal assistance for sewer system eval-
uation studies necessary to determine
•whether there Is excessive infiltration.
Procedures to permit Federal assistance
under these requirements as a part of
the usual construction grant process are
incorporated in these regulations and
will be applicable to grants awarded alter
June 30,1673,
Separate regulations will be promul-
gated to Implement the provisions and adding Subpart
E which contains the material formerly
codified as Subpart D m PR 26282
Dec. 8,1972).
Subpart D—[Reserved]
Subpart E—Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works—Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972
Sec.
Purpose.
.Authority.
Eummajy of construction cram
program. b
Definitions.
TbeAct.
Combined sewer.
Construction.
.
35.SI5-7
35.325-8
35.900
35,001
35.903
35.905
35.905-1
35.905-2
35.905-3
.
35.825-10
85.925-11
35.925-18
35.825-33
35.927
35.628
35.930
35.931M
35.930-2
35.930-3
35.930-4
3S.B30-S
35.935
35,951-1
35.935-2
35.935-3
35.335-4
35.935-5
S5.835-C
S5.93S-7
35.935-8
35,935-9
35.935-10
35.935-11
35 .935-12
35.940
35.940-1
35.940-3
35.940-3
35.9-10-4
35,940-5
35.945
35.650
3SJ65S
Design.
Environmental review,
Civil rights.
Operation S.TKJ jnatatenanco pro-
gram.
User charge system.
Scwcvge collection systems.
Alternative techniques aad tech-
nology.
Sewer system evaluation.
User charger system {K«serv«d J
Grant award.
Types of grants.
Grant amount.
Grant term,
Project scope.
Grant perceutgae.
Grant conditions.
Konrestrlctlve specifications.
Procurement.
Bonding and insurance.
State and local laws.
Davis-Bacon and related statutes.
Equd! employment opportunity.
Access.
Supervision.
Project completion.
Copies of contract documents.
.
Operation and maintenance.
Determination ol allowable costs.
Allowable costs.
Unallowable costs.
Costs allowable. If approved.
Indirect costs.
Disputes.
Grant payments.
Suspension or terrASnaUon. of
grants.
Grant amendments to Increase
gm>t amounts.
35.905-6
35.905-1
35.905-8
35.905-9
35405-10
35.905-11
35.805-12
35.905-13
35.905-14
35.905-15
35.908
35.610
3S.91O-1
35.9IO-2
35.915
35.92O
35.920-1
95.920-4
, 35 .920-9
3 5 .925
35.925-1
35.925-8
35.925-3
35.925-4
Inflow.
Interstate agency.
Municipality.
Project.
Sanitary sever.
State.
State agency.
Storm sewer.
Treatment works,
Advanced technology »n prepara-
tion of construction drawings and speci-
fications, and (3) fabrication and build-
RDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 3*—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1973
148
-------
RUIES AND REGULATIONS
ing of a complete and operable treatment
works. Although hi most cases comple-
tion of preliminary plans and studies
will be a prerequisite to award of a grant,
in order to allow State and Federal of-
ficials an adequate basis to determine the
merits of proposed projects, the EPA
Regional Administrator may award a
grant for completion of preliminary plans
and studies (the first step). A grant for
a project will include an initial payment
for the Federal sliare of the unreimbursed
allowable costs of completed work (e.g.
preliminary plans and studies, prepara-
tion of final construction drawings and
specifications), if such prior costs are
within the scope of the proposed project
and the grant amount certified by thu
State agency. In no case may a grant be
awarded unless the proposed project has
received a priority certification which ac-
cords with an approved State system for
determining the priority of needed treat-
ment works.
(b) The scope of a project may in-
clude one or more construction steps
and will be determined by the definition
of the project in the grant application
submitted to the State agency, by the
scope of the project for which State pri-
ority certification is given, and finally by
the scope of the project for which the
Regional Administrator awards a grant.
Funding of a complete treatment works
may (but need not) be "split" into a
project or grant for each step. The State
is responsible for determining the
amount and timing of Federal assistance
to each municipality for which treatment
works funding is needed.
(c) Upon award of a grant under this
subpart, the grantee may submit a re-
quest for payment for the unpaid Federal
share of allowable project costs incurred
prior to the award, and the grant shall
constitute a contractual obligation of the
United States to pay the Federal share of
allowable project costs up to the amount
approved in the grant agreement (in-
cluding amendments).
(d) No grant may be awarded under
this subpart for a project for the build-
ing: and erection of a treatment works
(Step 3) if initiation of the project con-
struction has occurred, that is, if a notice
to proceed has been issued under a con-
struction contract for any portion of the
project work or. if notice to proceed is
not required, if the construction con-
tract has been executed.
(c) Applications for grants and grant
amendments must first be submitted to
the State agency, and the State agency
may then forward to the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator complete
project applications or grant amend-
ments which have been certified by the
State agency as entitled to priority.
(f) Sewage collection systems for new
communities, new subdivisions, or newly
developed urban areas must be addressed
in the planning of such areas and must
be included as a part of the development
costs of the new construction In these
areas; they are not to be covered under
the construction grant program.
§ 33.903 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, the following
words and terms shall have the meaning
set forth below:
§ 33.905-1 ll.c Act.
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (Public Law 92-500).
§ 33.903-2 Combined sewer.
A sewer intended to serve as a sani-
tary sewer and a storm sewer.
§ 33.903-3 Construclion.
Any one or more of the following: Pre-
liminary planning to determine the feasi-
bility of treatment works, engineering,
architectural, legal, fiscal, or economic
investigations or studies, surveys, designs,
plans, working drawings, specifications,
procedures or other necessary actions,
erection, building, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement, or extension
of treatment works, or the inspection or
supervision of any of the foregoing items.
The phrase "initiation of construction,"
as used in this subpart, means the issu-
ance of a notice to proceed, or, if none
is required, the execution of a construc-
tion contract.
§ 35.903—4 Excessive infiltration/inflow.
The quantities of infiltration/inflow
which can be economically eliminated
from a sewer system by rehabilitation,
as determined by a cost-effectiveness
analysis that (for the design life of the
treatment works) compares correcting
the infiltration/inflow conditions with
increasing the treatment works capacity
to provide the required waste water
treatment for the quantities of infiltra-
tion/inflow.
§ 33.903-5 Infillralion.
The water entering a sewer system and
service connections from the ground,
through such means as, but not limited
to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connec-
tions, or manhole walls. Infiltration does
not include, and is distinguished from,
inflow.
§ 35.905-6 Inflow.
The water discharged into a sewer sys-
tem and service connections from such
sources as, but not limited to, roof lead-
ers, cellar, yard, and area drains, foun-
dation drains, cooling water discharges,
drains from springs and swampy areas,
manhole covers, cross connections from
storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
basins, storm waters, surface run-off,
street wash waters, or drainage. Inflow
does not include, and is distinguished
from, infiltration.
§ 33.905-7 Iiifihralion/inflow.
The total quantity of water from both
Infiltration and inflow without distin-
guishing the source.
§ 35.903-8 Interstate agency.
An agency of two or more States estab-
lished by or pursuant to an agreement or
compact approved by the Congress, or
any other agency of two or more States,
having substantial powers or duties per-
taining to the control of water pollution.
§ 33.903-9 Mimiciiuililr.
A city, town, borough, county, parish,
district (but excluding a school district,),
association, or other public body (includ-
ing an intermr.nicipal agency of two or
more of the foregoing entities) created
by or pursuant to State law, or an Indian
tribe or an authorized Indian tribal or-
ganization, having jurisdiction over dis-
posal of sewasc, industrial wastes, or
other wastes, or a designated and ap-
proved management agency under sec-
tion 208 of the act.
§ 33.903-10 Project.
The scope of work for which Federal
assistance is awarded by a grant pursu-
ant to this Subpart.
§33.903—11 Sanitary sewer.
A sewer intended to carry only sanitary
and industrial waste waters from resi-
dences, commercial buildings, industrial
plants, and institutions.
§ 35.903-12 State.
A State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Vir-
gin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.
§ 35.905-13 State agency.
The State water pollution control
agency designated by the Governor hav-
ing responsibility for enforcing State laws
relating to the abatement of pollution.
§33.903-14 Storm sewer.
A sewer intended to carry only storm
waters, surface run-off, street wash
waters, and drainage.
§33.903-15 Treatment works.
Any devices and systems used in the
storage, treatment, recycling, and recla-
mation of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature to implement
section 201 of the act, or necessary to
recycle or reuse water at the most eco-
nomical cost over the estimated life of
the works, including intercepting sewers,
outfall sewers, sewage collection systems,
pumping, power, and other equipment
and their appurtenances; extensions, im-
provements, remodeling, additions, and
alterations thereof; elements essential to
provide a reliable recycled supply such
as standby treatment units and clear well
facilities; and any works, including site
acquisition of the land that will be an
integral part of the treatment process or
is used for ultimate disposal of residues
resulting from such treatment; or any
other method or system for preventing,
•abating, reducing, storing, treating, sep-
arating, or disposing of municipal waste,
including' storm water run-off, or indus-
trial waste, including waste In combined
storm water and sanitary sewer systems.
§ 35.908 Advanced technology and ac-
celerated construction techniques.
It is the policy of the Environmental
Protection Agency to encourage and,
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 39—WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 28, 1973
149
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5331
whci'c possible, to nssist In the develop-
ment of advanced technology and ac-
celerated construction techniques for the
construrtion of v.-n?jte treatment works.
New lw)>»olosy may be developed or
demonstrated with the assistance of
EPA research or demonstration grants
awarded under title I of Uic act. New
technology which lias been successfully
demonstrated under comparable condi-
tions may be \itilizccl in the construction
of treatment works under this subpart.
In addition, the Regional Administrator,
with the concurrence of the appropriate
Assistant Administrator(s). may award
a comprehensive grant (§ 30.205 of this
chapter) to include the application or
demonstration of new technology assisted
under title I of the net in any portion of
a treatment works constructed princi-
pally with assistance under this subpart,
pursuant to this subchapter and such
conditions and procedures for EPA .as-
sistance as the Director, Grants Adminis-
tration Division, may approve.
§ 35.910 Allocation of funds.
§ 35,910-1 Allotment.
State
Nebraska
Nevada. _.
New Hampshire.
Per-
centage
3708
.2077
,-~ 8309
New Jcr.-cy . 7,7040
JvVv.' Mrxlco . .2308
New York 11.0578
North Carolina _„, .8229
North B.ikols . 04C7
Ohio 5.7737
Oklahoma .4C08
Oregon .8494
Pennsylvania . 5.4214
Rhode Islsuid .4889
Kouih Carolina .6455
South Dakota . ,0318
Tennessee 1.1605
Texas' 2.7694
Utah . J408
Vermont >._._»_ _. .2218
Virginia 3.9143
Washington .8906
West Virginia— .4999
Wisconsin . ^ 1.7415
Wyoming . 0203
Guam .0872
Puerto Rico .8845
Virgin Islands . .0893
American Samoa , „ . .0048
Trust Territory of Pacific .0378
(a) The Administrator shall allot inn nnnn
among the States, funds authorized to be ,u, D . .. »w.uuuu
appropriated pursuant to section 207 in (?' Ba-l?d upon the aPPl'«*ble per-
the ratio that the estimated cost of con- f1^65- the sums plotted to the States
etructing all needed publicly owned J°E flscal years 1973 and 1974 are «•
treatment works in each Slate bears to I01lcr"'s-
Uie estimated cost of construction ol all '
needed publicly owned treatment works sta(e
In all of the States. For fiscal years end-
ing June 30, 1973. and June 30, 1974. ., ,
lion, respectively, have been determined Ariiona
be appropriated within the correspond- Coiormdo...I«™I
Inff Maximum Amount % Qn^/nfioH in *«/» Connecticut.... „ ..
Won 207 and will be allotted on a ratio District or Columbia
determined on the basis of Table HI of Florf^a
House Public Works Committee Print No. Hn\vnH°""* *
92-50. Computation of a State's ratio J'laiw-
thousandth percent (0.0001 percent) and Jo**
nearest thousand dollars. The applicable Louisiana
percentages to be used in coraputin(r Maine , »
State allotments for fiscal years 1973 and >ias»cim5eiu.™.^III
1074 at* a* fnllnwe • Michigan. .-
*V<«areaSIOUOWS. Minnesota
Pet- Mississippi..
State eentage Missouri
AJ.^ ... . .3ei2 J&^;:;:
Alaska .2252 Nevada
Arizona „_ 134« New Hampshire
£Si :s536 N- &-:::-::::::
California „ p. 8i76 Kew yOTj£ -
Colorado _._ 3166 North Carolina
Connecticut . i naio N^U" B»*ot»
Delaware * <*"« o(,io
District of Columbia ;?m Ow'^
y^oxida . .. . 3 Q264 J'ciinsylvania
Oeorria 1 . . 0700 Rhode Island
HBW&II r" ... South Carolina
loabO . . 2177 Tennessee ^ •
Ullnols _. f 2489 Texas ;j
Indiana a «BIM Ulal1 -'-
SST!.:::;::..:::;:::::;:::;::; ?; ;jg *™»f :
Kentucky «5no Wrst Yircinia — »
loulslani I B428 SSn? "
Maine :l^ SsS7~:"::~±
Maryland 4 2582 Puerto Hico - ..-
Massachusetts 3.7570 SriV^moV"^-"'
M«S 7-98U *KtrSrtiS?u' ~
Minnesota „____...„___„.„ » 3 0319 Pacific .
Mississippi . 3935 —
Missouri 1.6556 Tolal-.i.^.-;..^
Montana, „. ._ - IBM
Fiscal yew
1973
'7,M4,COO
4,201,000
2,«K,000
7,072,««
1M, 352, 000
- 6,332,000
33,620,000
13,130,000
14,22!l,aX)
72,428,000
19,4(10,000
- 6,COS,000
4, 35*, (100
124,97(1,000
67,324,000
23,114,000
7,464,000
13,198,000
IS, 850,000
19,350,000
85,161,000
V6,]51>,000
169. CW, 000
-------
5^32
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Juno 30, 1973: Provided, U> That the
Regional Administrator may approve the
list included with the annual State pro-
gram plan submission (Part 30, Subpart
B of this part); and (2) not-withstanding
the foregoing, the Regional Adminis-
trator shall approve the list, or any por-
tion thereof, which is prepared in ac-
cordance with any State plan approved
pursuant to section 303(e) (3) (II) of the
act for the certification of projects after
the date of approval of such plan,
(c) Project list. The State agency
shall submit for the approval of the
Regional Administrator a listing of all
projects for which Federal assistance will
be requested, from current allotments,
the priority for which shall be derived
from the list of municipalities. Such
project list shall set forth a tabulation
of funding priorities and requirements
including, as a minimum, the following
information for each project: (1) Name
of municipality; <2> brief description of
type of project and anticipated scope of
project: (3) the estimated total project
cost; (4) estimated dates of initiation
and completion of preliminary plans arid
studies; (5) estimated dates of comple-
tion of construction drawings and speci-
fications; (6) estimated dates of initi-
ation and completion of building and
erection; and (7) estimated amount of
EPA assistance required to complete the
project, including identification of the
6-month period (July 1-Deccmber 31,
January 1-June 30) when a grant award
•will be required. Such project list shall
be submitted for the approval of the
Regional Administrator annually as part
of the State program submission pur-
suant to Part 35, Subpart B of this part,
and may be revised as necessary, with the
approval of the Regional Administrator
upon compliance with the public partici-
pation requirements of paragraph (e) of
this section: Provided, That the State
agency may elect to rely upon the 1-year
list submitted in accordance with
§ 35.575(f) to satisfy the foregoing proj-
ect list requirements with respect to
grants awarded prior to July 1, 1973.
(d) State priority certification for
projects. The State agency must for-
ward with each application submitted to
the Regional Administrator a certifica-
tion that the proposed project is entitled
to priority in accordance with the State
priority system, and requires the speci-
fied funding requested from allotments
currently available. The State agency is
responsible for denning the scope of
treatment works projects and determin-
ing the time when such projects are to
receive Federal financial assistance.
(e) Public participation. The Regional
Administrator may not approve a State
priority system or revision thereof in ef-
fect after June 30, 1973, unless he deter-
mines that the State agency has afforded
adequate opportunity for oral or writ-
ten municipal and public comment upon
the State priority system, the list of mu-
nicipalities, and the project list, or re-
visions, prior to submission to the Re-
gional Administrator,
§ 35.920 Grant nppliculioti.
Grant applications will be submitted
and evaluated in accordance with Part
30, Subpart B of this chapter.
§ 55.920-1 Eligibility.
Municipalities, intermunicipal agen-
cies, States, or interstate agencies may
apply for grants.
§ 35.920-2 Procedure.
Preapplication assistance, including,
where appropriate, a preapptication con-
ference, may be requested from the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office. An appli-
cation must be submitted to the State
agency for each proposed project. The
State agency will submit to the Regional
Administrator those applications for con-
struction grants which are complete and
.which relate to projects which have re-
ceived priority certification in accord-
ance with § 35.915.
§ 35.920—3 Contents of application.
(a) Project for preliminary plans and
studies (.Step I). An application for a
grant for preliminary plans and studies
shall include but not be limited to:
(1) State priority certification in ac-
cordance with f 35.915;
(2) A brief description of the nature
and scope of the proposed project;
(3) Required comments or approvals of
relevant State, local, and Federal agen-
cies (including "clearinghouse" require-
ments of OMB Circular A-95) ;
(4) An estimate of the proposed proj-
ect cost; and
(5) Proposed subagreements, or an ex-
planation of the intended method of
awarding subagreements for perform-
ance of any substantial portion of the
project work.
(b) Project for preparation of con-
struction draioings and. specifications
(.Step 2). An application for a grant for
preparation of construction drawings
and specifications shall Include but not
be limited to:
(1) State priority certification in ac-
cordance with § 35.915;
(2) Sewer system evaluation in accord-
ance with I 35.927;
(3) Feasibility report;
(4) Engineering report. Including, but
not limited to:
(i) Facility design data incorporating:
(a) Results of sewer system evalua-
tion;
(b) Estimated effluent quality, with re-
spect to all parameters required by ap-
plicable effluent limitations and water
quality standards; and
(c) Proposed method for ultimate dis-
posal of sludge.
(ii) Cost estimates for design and con-
struction; and
(iii) Schedule for completion of design
and construction.
(5) Description of proposed user
charge system in accordance with
§ 35.928;
(6) Statement regarding availability of
proposed site, if relevant:
(7) Statement regarding ability of
applicant to obtain discharge permit for
proposed facility;
(8) Required comments or approvals
of relevant state, local, and Federal
agencies (including compliance with
"clearinghouse" requirements of OMB
Circular A-05);
(9) Environmental assessment, In ac-
cordance with Part 6 of this chapter un-
less the Regional Administrator deter-
mines, at the request of the applicant,
that there is-insufficient data available
to prepare such assessment, provided
that the environmental assessment must
then be submitted to the Regional Ad-
ministrator at or prior to the time of sub-
mission of plans and specifications for
the building and erection of a treatment
works;
(10) Statement regardng the appli-
cant's financial, legal, institutional, and.
managerial capabilities to insure the con-
struction, operation, and maintenance of
the treatment works;
(11) Statement regarding compliance
with other applicable Federal statutory
and regulatory requirements (see 40 CFB
Part 30, Subpart C);
(12) Statement regarding compliance
with title VI of Civil Eights Act of 1964;
(13) Statement regarding applicant's
proposed operation and maintenance
program;
(14) Proposed subagreements, or an
explanation of the intended method of
awarding subagreements for perform-
ance of any substantial portion of the
project work.
(c) Project for building and erection
of a treatment works (.Step 3). An appli-
cation lor a grant for the building and
erection of a treatment works shall in-
clude the items in paragraph (b) of
this section, and in addition shall Include
two complete sets of the construction
drawings and specifications, suitable for
bidding purposes: Provided, That if any
such information has been furnished
with an earlier application, the appli-
cant need only Incorporate by reference
and update or revise such information.
(d) Design/construct project. An ap-
plication for a grant for a design/con-
struct project shall include the items in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
except that, in lieu of construction
drawings and specifications, the pro-
posed performance specifications and
other relevant design/construct criteria
for the project shall be submitted.
§ 35.925 Limitations on award.
Before approving a grant for any proj-
ect for any treatment works, the Re-
gional Administrator shall determine:
§ 35.925-1 Facility planning.
That a current basin plan and regional
or metropolitan plan as required in
accordance with §§ 35.150-1 and 35.150-2
have been adopted (facility planning re-
quirements will be an eligible construc-
tion grants cost as provided for in
§135.905-3 and 35.940-l(d)).
§ 35.925-2 Stale plan.
That such works are in conformity
with any applicable State plan approved
in accordance with section 303(e) of the
act.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 39—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, J973
151
-------
§ 3sV.925-3 Priority certification.
That such works Have been certified
by Uic State agency as entitled to pn-
oritv in accordance with § 35.915, and
that Ihc.nwwd of a grant for the pro-
iiorpct project will not jeopardize the
f umlins ol aw treatment \vorks of higher
priority.
£ 35.925-4 State allocation.
Xlmt the award of the grant will not
rc5ult in the total of all grants awarded
to applicants of a State, including grant
increases, to exceed the total of all allot-
ments and reallotments available to such
State pursuant to § 35.910.
§ 35.925-5 Applicant's funding capabil-
ity-
That the applicant has agreed to pay
the non-Federal project costs.
§ 35.925-6 Permits.
That the applicant has provided assur-
ance acceptable to the Regional Admin-
istrator that any necessary discharge
permit has been or will be obtained in
.accordance with section 402 of the act.
§ 35.925-7 Design.
If the application is for a project which
Includes the building and erection of a
treatment works (Step 3),
(a) That the design, size, and capac-
ity of such works are cost effective and
relate directly to the needs to be served
by such works, including adequate re-
servo capacity;
(b) 3?hat such works will meet appli-
ed!!!? effluent limitations and applica-
ble water quality standards and attain
not less than secondary treatment as
defined by the Administrator pursuant
to section SOHbHIHB) and 304
of the act;
(c) That alternative waste treatment
techniques have been studied and
evaluated;
-------
5334
RULES AND REGULATIONS
into the sewer system. The report shall
summarize the quantities of defined in-
filtration/inflow and propose a program
of rehabilitation to correct the excessive
infiltration/inflow. The rehabilitation
program for the sewer system shall be
accomplished on a selective cost-effective
basis for each defined element of infil-
tration/inflow.
(3) The sewer system evaluation sur-
vey report and rehabilitation program
for the sewer system shall be submitted
to the Regional Administrator for ap-
proval prior to initiation of construction
for Step 3.
(c) Sewer use ordinance. Each appli-
cant for a treatment works grant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Regional Administrator that a sewer use
ordinance or other legally binding1 re-
quirement shall be enacted and enforced
in each jurisdiction served by the treat-
ment works before the completion of
construction. The ordinance shall pro-
hibit any new connections from inflow
sources into the sanitary sewer portions
of the sewer system and shall require
that new sewers and connections from
waste water sources to the sewer system
are designed and constructed in accord-
ance with such guidelines as the Admin-
istrator may publish from time to time.
(d) Force account and survey equip-
ment costs. Reasonable force account and
equipment purchases or rental costs for
ell or part of a sewer system evaluation
survey conducted by an applicant in ac-
cordance with I 35.927(b) will be allow-
able costs if the Regional Administrator
has given prior approval for the use of
such forces and equipment.
(1) The applicant must demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Regional Ad-
ministrator the necessary technical com-
petence required to conduct all or part of
the evaluation survey. The applicant
must also demonstrate that the use of
force account and purchased or rented
survey equipment will be the most eco-
nomical method of conducting the evalu-
ation survey.
§ 35.923 User charge system. [Re-
served ]t
§ 35.930 Grant award.
Approval by the Regional Administra-
tor of an application shall constitute a
grant award for the project, and shall
constitute a contractual obligation of the
United States for the payment of the
Federal share of the allowable project
costs, as determined by the Regional Ad-
ministrator, subject to execution of a
grant agreement in accordance With
5 30.305-2.
§ 35.930-1 Types of grants.
(a> The Regional Administrator may
award a grant for the following types of
projects pursuant to i 35.925:
(1) Preliminary plans and studies
(Step 1): Provided, That he determines
that the applicant. has submitted the
items required pursuant to § 35.920-3(a)
and the State agency has determined
that the applicant is unable to complete
the necessary preliminary plans and
studies without Federal assistance;
(.21 Preparation of construction draw-
ings and specifications (Step 2): Pro-
vided, That he determines that the ap-
plicant has satisfactorily completed
appropriate preliminary plans and stud-
ies and has submitted the items re-
quired pursuant to § 35.920-3(b);
(3) Building and erection of a treat-
ment works (Step 3): Provided, That he
determines that the applicant has satis-
factorily completed appropriate prelimi-
nary plans and studies and haj submit-
ted the items required pursuant to
§ ?5.920-3(c); or
(4) A combination of design (Step 2)
920-(c); or
and construction (Step 3) for a treat-
ment works in the case of grants award-
ed after March 1, 1973:
(i) Where the Regional Administrator
determines that compelling water quality
enforcement considerations or serious
public health problems warrant award
of such a grant to assure expeditious
construction of such treatment works, or
(ii) Where the Regional Administrfx-
tor determines that award of such a
grant will minimize administrative re-
quirements in the case of projects not
requiring a substantial amount of Fed-
eral assistance:
Provided, That the Regional Administra-
tor determines that the applicant has
satisfactorily completed appropriate pre-
liminary plans and studies and has sub-
mitted the items required pursuant to
§ 35.920-3(b): And further provided,
That any such grant award may be an-
nulled unless detailed construction draw-
ings and specifications are submitted to
the Regional Administrator and approved
prior to initiation of construction for the
building and erection of the Project
(Step 3).
(5) Design/construction of treatment
works (Steps 2 and 3), Provided, That he
determines that the applicant has satis-
factorily completed appropriate prelimi-
nary plans and studies and has sub-
mitted the items required pursuant to
§ 35.920-3(d): And further provided,
That any such grant award is subject
to submission of detailed construction
drawings and specifications to the Re-
gional Administrator prior to initiation
of and during construction.
§ 35.930-2 Grant amount.
The amount of a grant shall be set
forth in the grant agreement and may
not exceed the amount of funds available
from the State allotments and reallot-
ments pursuant to § 35.910 and may not
exceed the amount certified by the State
agency in accordance with § 35.915. Grant
payments will be limited to the Federal
share of allowable project costs incurred
within the grant amount or any increases
in such amount effected through grant
amendments in accordance with § 35.955,
pursuant to the negotiated payment
schedule included in this grant agree-
ment.
§35.930-3 Grant term.
The grant agreement shall establish
the period within which the project
must be completed. In accordance with
5 30.305-1 of this chapter, subject to ex-
cusable delay.
§ 35.930—t Project scope.
The grant agreement must define the
scope of the project for which Federal
assistance is awarded under the grant.
The grant agreement shall define the
project as the construction of an iden-
tified complete treatment works.
§ 35.930-5 Grunt percentage.
The amount of any grant awarded
under this subpart shall be 75 percent
of the allowable cost of the project.
§35.935 Crnnl conditions.
In addition to the EPA General Grant
Conditions (Appendix A to Subchapter
B of this title and Part 30, Subpart C of
this chapter), each cranfe for treatment
works Involving building and erection
(Step 3) shall be subject to the following
conditions:
§ 35.935-1 Nom-cslrictivo specifications.
" No specification for bids or statement
of work in connection with such works
shall be written in such a manner as to
contain proprietary, exclusionary, or dis-
criminatory requirements other than
those based upon performance, unless
such requirements are necessary to test
or demonstrate a specific thing or to pro-
vide for necessary Interchangaabllity of
parts and equipment, or at least two
brand names or trade names of compa-
rable quality or utility are listed and are
followed by the words "or equal."
§ 35.935-2 Procurement.
• Construction work will be performed
by the fixed-price (lump sum) or fixed-
rate (unit price) method, or a combina-
tion of these two methods, unless the Re-
gional Administrator gives advance writ-
ten approval to use some other method of
contracting. The cost-plus-a percentage
of cost method of contracting shall not
be used. Adequate methods of advertising
for and obtaining competitive sealed bids
will be employed prior to award of the
construction contract. The award of the
contract will be made to the responsible
bidder submitting the lowest responsive
bid, which shall be determined without
regard to State or local law whereby pref-
erence is given on factors other than the
specification requirements and the
amount of bid. The grantee must
promptly transmit to the Regional Ad-
ministrator copies of bid protests, deci-
sions on such protests, and related cor-
respondence. The Regional Administra-
tor will cause appropriate review of
grantee procurement methods to be
made.
§ 35.935-3 Bonding and insurance.
On contracts for the building and erec-
tion of treatment works (Step 3) exceed-
ing $100,000, each bidder must furnish a
bid guarantee equivalent to 5 percent of
the bid price. In addition, the contractor
awarded either a design/construct con-
tract or a. construction contract for Step
3 must furnish performance and pay-
ment bonds, each of which shall be in an
amount not less than 100 percent of the
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 39—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1973
153
-------
contract price and shall remain in effect
'for 1 year beyond the date of the final
inspection and acceptance of the treat-
ment works, construction contracts less
than $100000 sin." be subject to State
nnd local1 requirements relating to bid
ruirnnlccs. performance bonds, .-aid pay-
jmi 1 bonds. In fill cases, the contractor
nviM. maintain adequate fire and ex-
iriidcd coverage, where appropriate.
n-oi-ymen's compensation, public liability
mid property damage, and "all-risk"
builders risk insurance (including blast-
IIIK. where appropriate) during the con-
struction phase of the contract.
§ 35.935—4 Stale and local laws.
The construction of the project. In-
cluding the letting of contracts in con-
nection therewith, snail conform to the
applicable requirements of State, terri-
torial, and local laws and ordinances to
the extent that such requirements do not
conflict with Federal laws and this Sub-
chapter.
§ 35.935-5 Davis-Bacon and related
statutes.
The grantee must consult with the Re-
gional Administrator prior to issuance
of Invitation for bids concerning compli-
ance with Davis-Bacon and related stat-
utes required pursuant to I 30.403 (a),
(b). and (c) of this chapter.
§ 35.935-6 Equal employment oppor-
tunity.
Generall, contracts involving Step 3, of
$10,000 and above, are subject to equal
employment opportunity requirements
under Executive Order 1124G, including
rules, regulations and orders issued there-
under. The grantee must consult with
the Begional Administrator concerning
equal employment opportunity require-
ments prior to issuance of invitation for
bids where the cost of construction v,-ork
Is estimated to be more than $1,000,000,
or where required by the grant agree-
ment.
§ 35.935-7 Access,
Any construction contract must pro-
vide that representatives of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the State
will have access to the work whenever it
is In preparation or progress and that the
contractor will provide proper facilities
for such access and inspection. The con-
tract must also provide that the Grants
Officer, the Comptroller General of the
United States, or any authorized repre-
sentative shall have access to any books,
documents, papers, and records of the
contractor which are pertinent to the
project for the purpose of making audit,
examination, excerpts, and transcriptions
thereof.
§ 35.935-8 Supervision.
The grantee will provide and maintain
competent and adequate engineering su-
pervision and inspection of the project
to insure that the construction con-
forms with the approved plans and
specifications.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§ 3 5.93 5-9 Pro j ccl completion.
The crantce agrees to expeditiously
construct and complete the project or
cause it to be constructed and completed
in accordance with the grant agreement
and plans and .specifications approved by
the Regional Administrator.
§ 35.935-10 Copies of contract tlocu-
nieiits.
In addition to the notification of proj-
ect changes pursuant to ? 30.900-1 of this
chapter, a copy of any construction con-
tract or modification thereof (including
subcontracts) and of revisions to plans
and specifications must be promptly
submitted to the Regional Administrator.
§ 35.935-11 Project changes.
In addition to the notification of proj-
ect changes required pursuant to 5 30.-
900-1 of this chapter, prior approval by
the Regional Administrator and the State
agency is required for project changes
which may (a) substantially alter the
design, and scope of the project, (b) alter
the type of treatment to be provided,
(c) substantially alter the location, size,
capacity, or quality of any major Item
of equipment; or (d) increase the amount
of Federal funds needed to complete the
project: Provided, That prior EPA ap-
proval is not required for changes to cor-
rect minor errors, minor changes, or
emergency changes. No approval of a
project change pursuant to | 30.900 of
this chapter or this section shall commit
or obligate the United States to any in-
crease in the amount of the grant or
payments thereunder unless an approved
request has been made. The preceding
sentence shall not preclude submission
or consideration of a request for a grant
amendment pursuant to § 30.901 of this
chapter.
§ 35.935-12 Operation and mainte-
nance.
The grantee agrees that the treatment
works will be maintained and operated
In accordance with such requirements
as the Administrator may publish from
time to time and in accordance with ap-
propriate methods, techniques, and prac-
tices for economic, efficient, effective
maintenance and operation of such
treatment works consistent with the de-
sign of such works, including, but not
limited to, (a) an operation and main-
tenance manual for each facility, (b) an
emergency operating and response pro-
gram, (c) properly trained management,
operations and maintenance personnel,
(d) adequate budget for operation and
maintenance, Personal injury compensation or
damages arising out of the project,
whether determined by adjudication,
arbitration, negotiation, or otherwise;
£d> Fines and penalties resulting from
violations of, or failure to comply with,
Fedei-al, State, or local laws;
(e) Costs outside the scope of the ap-
proved project:
(f) Interest on bonds or any other form
of indebtedness required to finance the
grantee's share of project costs;
Ordinary operating expenses of
local government, such as salaries and
expenses of a mayor, city council mem-
bers, or city attorney, except ar pro-
vided in §35.940-4;
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 39—WEDMESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1973
154
-------
5335
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(h) Site acquisition (for example,
sewer rlghts-of-way, sewer treatment
plant sites, sanitary landfills and sludge
disposal areas), except as otherwise pro-
vided in § 35.010-3(a>.
§ 35,910-3 Costs allowable, if approved.
Certain direct costs are sometimes ne-
cessary for the construction of a treat-
ment works and are allowable if reason-
able and approved by the Regional Ad-
ministrator in the grant agreement or a
Brant amendment. Such costs include,
but are not limited to:
(a) Land acquired after October 17,
1972, that will be an integral part of the
treatment process or that will be used for
•ultimate disposal of residues resulting
from such treatment (for example, land
for spray irrigation of sewage eflluent).
(b) Acquisition of an operable portion
of a treatment works.
(c) Rate determinations studies re-
quired pursuant to § 35.925-11.
§ 35.940-4 Indirect costs.
Indirect costs of the grantee shall be
allowable In accordance with an indirect
cost agreement negotiated and incor-
porated in the grant agreement. An in-
direct cost agreement must identify those
cost elements allowable pursuant to § 35.-
940-1. Where the benefits derived from a
grantee's indirect services cannot be
readily determined, a lump sum for over-
head may be negotiated based upon a
determination that such amount will be
approximately the same as the actual in-
direct costs that may be incurred.
§ 35.940-5 Disputes.
The grantee should seek to resolve any
questions relating to .cost alienability or
allocation at its earliest opportunity (if
possible, prior to execution of the grant
agreement). Final determinations con-
cerning the allowability of costs shall be
conclusive unless appealed within 30 days
in accordance with the "Disputes" article
(Article 7) of the EPA General Grant
Conditions (Appendix A. Subchapter B
of this title).
§ 35.945 Grant payments.
The grantee shall be paid on a reim-
bursable basis for the Federal share of
allowable costs incurred within the scope
of an approved project: Provided, That
such payments may not exceed the pay-
ment schedule and the grant amount set
forth in the grant agreement and any
amendments thereto.
(a) Initial payment. Upon award of a
grant, the grantee may request payment
for the unpaid Federal share of allowable
project costs, e.g., preliminary plans and
studies, sewer system evaluations, or
preparation of final construction draw-
Ings and specifications.
Interim payments. The grantee
may submit requests for payment for al-
lowable costs incurred in accordance with
the negotiated payment schedule in-
cluded in the grant agreement. Upon re-
ceipt of a request for payment, the
Regional Administrator shall cause to be
disbursed from available appropriated
funds such amounts as are necessary so
that the total amount of Federal pay-
ments to the Grantee for the project Is
equal to the Federal share of the actual
or estimated allowable project costs in-
curred to date, as certified by the grantee
in its most recent request for payment.
(c) Adjustment. At any time or times
prior to final payment under the grant,
the Regional Administrator may cause
any request(s) for payment to bo re-
viewed or audited. Each payment there-
tofore made shall.be subject to reduction
for amounts included in the related re-
quest for payment which are found, on
the basis of such review or audit, not to
constitute allowable costs. Any payment
may be reduced for overpayments or in-
creased for underpayments on preceding
requests for payment.
. (d) Refund, rebates, credits, etc. The
Federal share of any refunds, rebates.
credits, or other amounts (including any
interest thereon) accruing to or received
by the grantee with respect to the proj-
ect, to the extent that they are properly
allocable to costs for which the grantee
has been paid under a grant, must be
credited to the current State allotment
or paid to the United States. Reasonable
expenses incurred by the grantee for the
purpose of securing such refunds, re-
bates, credits, or other amounts shall be
allowable under the grant when ap-
proved by the Regional Administrator.
(e) Final payment. On receipt and ap-
proval of the request for payment desig-
nated by the grantee as the "final pay-
ment request" and upon compliance by
the grantee with all applicable require-
ments of this part (including paragraph
(d) of this section) and the grant agree-
ment, the Regional Administrator shall
cause to be disbursed to the grantee any
balance of allowable cost which has not
been paid to the grantee. The final pay-
ment request must be submitted by the
grantee promptly following completion
of the project work but in no event later
than 1 year (or such longer period as
the Regional Administrator may in his
discretion approve in writing) from the
date of such completion. Prior to final
payment under the grant, the grantee
must execute and deliver an assignment
to the United States, in form and sub-
stance satisfactory to the Regional Ad-
ministrator, of the Federal share of re-
funds, rebates, credits or other amounts
(including any interest thereon) prop-
erly allocable to costs for which the
grantee has been paid by the Govern-
ment under the grant, and a release dis-
charging the United States, its officers,
agents, and employees from all liabili-
ties, obligations, and. claims arising out
of the project or under the grant, sub-
ject only to such exceptions which may
be specified in the release.
§ 35.950 Suspension or termination of
grants.
Grants may be suspended, in accord-
ance with § 30.902 of this chapter and
Article 4 of the General Grant Condi-
tions (Appendix A to Subchapter B of
tills title), or terminated, in accordance
with § 30.903 of this chapter and Article
5 of the General Grant Conditions (Ap-
pendix A to Subchapter B of this title):
Provided, That the State agency shall
be concurrently notified in writing of any
such suspension or termination action,
§ 35.955 Grant niiietulinenii to increase
grant a mounts.
Grant agreements may be amended in
accordance with § 30.001 of this chapter
with respect to project changes which
have been approved in accordance with
§ 30.900 of this chapter: Provided, That
no grant agreement may be amended to
increase the amount of a grant unless
the State agency !M.S issued a priority
certification lor the grant increase from
available State'allotments and reallot-
ments in accordance with § 35.915.
[FR Doc.73-3750 Filed 2-27-13:8:45 am]
SUBCHAPTER E—PESTICIDES PROGRAMS
PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EXEMP-
TIONS FROM TOLERANCES FOR PESTI-
CIDE CHEMICALS IN OH ON RAW AGRI-
CULTURAL COMMODITIES
Cycloheximide
A petition (PP 2P1252) was filed by
The Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo, Mich. 49001,
proposing establishment of a tolerance
(40 CFR Part 180) for residues of the
plant regulator cycloheximide (3-t2-(3,
5-dimethyl - 2 - oxocyclohexyl) - 2 - hy-
droxyethyUglutarimide) in or on the raw
agricultural commodity oranges at 0.05
part per million.
Subsequently, the petitioner amended
the petition by increasing the proposed
tolerance on oranges to 0.1 part per
million.
Based on consideration given data sub-
mitted in the petition and other relevant,
material, it is concluded that:
1. The plant regulator is useful for the
purpose for which the tolerance is be-
ing established. -
2. There is no reasonable expectation
of residues in esas, meat, milk, or poul-
try, and § lS0.6(a) (3) applies.
3. The tolerance established by this
order will protect the public health.
Therefore, pursuant to provisions of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (sec. 408(d)(2), 68 Stat. 512; 21
U.S.C. 346a(d) (2)), the authority trans-
ferred to the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency (35 FR
15623), and the authority delegated by
the Administrator to the Deputy Assist-
ant Administrator for Pesticide Pro-
grams (36 FR 9038), Part 180 is amended
by adding the following new section to
Subpart C:
§ 180.336 Cyclolieximide; tolerances for
residues.
A tolerance of 0.1 part per million is es-
tablished for residues of the plant regu-
lator cycloheximide <3-[2-(3,5-dimethyl-
2-oxocyclohexyl) - 2 - hydroxyethyllglu-
tarimide) in or on the raw agricultural
commodity oranges.
Any person who will be adversely af-
fected by the foregoing order may at any
time on or before March 30,1073, file with
the Hearing Clerk, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Room 3D02A, Fourth and
M Streets SW., Waterside Mall, Wash-
ington, DC 20460. written objections
thereto in quintuplicate. Objections shall
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 39—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1973
155
-------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 38 * Number 11
PART II
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PREPARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
Interim Regulation
NO. 11—pt. n
156
-------
RULES A.ND REGULATIONS
Title 40—PROTECTION
OF ENVIRONMENT
Chapter 1—Environmental Protection
Agency
PART 6—PREPARATION OF ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
Enteri'm Regulations
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, implemented by Executive
Order 11514 and the Council on Environ-
mental Quality's Guidelines of April 23,
1971, requires that all agencies of the
Federal Government prepare detailed en-
vironmental statements on pioposnls for
legislation and other major Federal ac-
tions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment. Th? objective of
the Act is to build into the Aecncy deci-
sionrnaking process r,n appropriate and
careful consideration of all environmen-
tal aspects of proposed actions.
On January 20, 1972 (37 FR 879J, the
Environmental Protection Agency pub-
lished as proposed vule making a new
part 6 establishing agency policy and
procedures for the identification and
analysis of the environmental impact of
agency actions, and the preparation and
processing of environmental impact
statements \vhen significant impacts on
the environment are anticipated. The
proposed part 6 WF.S a summary of the
Agency's procedures.
As a result of public comment on the
summary, the Agency has revised its pro-
cedures and is now publishing them in
their entirety as an interim regulation.
Because the public has not seen the com-
plete procedures and because ol the sig-
nificant changes made, we are again in-
viting public comment. Final regulations
will be published after receipt and con-
sideration of the comments.
Environmentally protective regulatory
activities have been specifically excluded
from this interim regulation pending the
outcome of certain judicial appeals and
an internal EPA study of its regulatory
activities.
The Environmental Protection Agency
invites aU interested persons who desire
to submit written comments or sugges-
tions concerning the preparation of final
regulations to do so in triplicate to the
Office of Federal Activities, Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, DC
20460. Such submissions should be re-
ceived by April 15, IS'iS, to allow time for
appropriate consideration and possible
inclusion in the final regulations. Popies
of the submissions will be available for
examination by interested persons in the
Public Information Office, Room W329.
Waterside Mall, Fourth and M Streets,
SW., Washington, DC.
Effective date. This regulation will be-
come effective February 16, 1973.
Dated: January 10, 1973.
ROBERT W. PHI,
Acting Administrator.
Subporl A—-Genorol
See.
0.10 Purpose rtncl policy.
0.11 Dfliiiliiutts.
ff.12 Summary of the environmental Impact
statement process.
6.13 Applicability.
6.14 General responsibilities.
6.15 Timing tor proposed Agency actions on
which inipnct statements are to be
prcparc-d.
Subporf B—Procedures
6.20 Guidelines for determining when to
prepare an impact statement.
621 Environmental review.
6.22 Notice ol intent.
6.23 Draft impact statements.
6.24 Final impact statements.
G.25 Negative declaration and environmental
impact appraisals.
Subporl C—Content of Environmental Import
Statements
6.30 Cover sheet.
6.31 Sxnr.mary sheet.
6.32 Body of statement.
Subpart D—Public Participation
G.40 General.
0.41 Public hearings.
S.42 Comments on draft and final state-
ments.
3.43 A-?ailability of documents.
Sulipart E—Guidelines for Preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Statements for Waste-water
TreuInienS Works and Associated Plans
6.50 Purpose.
6.51 Definitions.
6.52 Applicability.
6.53 Responsibilities.
6.54 Criteria for preparation of environmen-
tal impact statements.
6.55 Procedures for preparation of Impact
statements for plans.
6.56 Procedures for preparation ol Impact
statements for wastewater treatment
works.
6.57 Content of environmental Impact
statements.
6.58 Public hearing requirements.
6.59 Project commencement.
Subport F—Guidelines for the Preparation of En-
vironmental Impact Statements for Research
and Monitoring Projects and Activities
6.60 Purpose.
6.61 Definitions,
6.62 Applicability.
6.63 Responsibilities.
6.64 Criteria lor the preparation ol environ-
mental impact statements.
6.85 Procedures for preparation, distribu-
tion, and review ol EIS's and other
ElS-sssoclated documents.
Subporl G—Guidelines for the Preparation of En-
vironmental Impact Statements for Air Quality
Projects end Activities
6.70 Purpose.
6.71 Definitions.
6.12 Applicability.
6.73 Responsibilities.
6.74 Criteria for the preparation of environ-
mental assessments and Impact
statements.
6.75 Procedures for preparation, distribu-
tion, and review ot EIS's and other
Els-associated documents.
Subport K—Gi'fctelines for the Preparation of En-
vironmental Impact Statements for Solid Waste
Projects and Activities
6.80 Purpose.
6.81 Dcnnitioiis,
6.83 Applicability.
Sec.
0.83 nrapon-sIMlltles.
G.84 C'ritgriix for the preparation of environ-
mental assessments and impact
statements.
6.95 Procedures for prcparctlon, dl*.trlV.i-
tion, and review ol EIS's and otjier
EIS-assoelBtcd documents.
Subpart I—Guidelines for the Preparation of En-
vironmental Impact Statements for Construction
of Special Purpose Facilities and Facility
Renovations
6.90 Purpose.
6.91 Definitions.
6.92 Applicability.
6.03 Responsibilities.
6.94 Criteria for the preparation of environ-
mental assessments and impact
statements.
6.95 Procedures for preparation, distribu-
tion, and review of EIS's and other
Bis-associated documents.
EXHIBITS
1 Flowchart.
2 (page I.) Notice of Intent Transmlttal
Memorandum Suggested Format.
2 (page 2.) Notice of Intent Suggested
Format.
3 News Release Suggested Format.
4 Negative Declaration Suggested Format.
5 Environmental Impact Appraisal Suggested
Format.
6 Cover Sheet Format for Environmental
Impact Statements.
7 Summary Sheet Format for Environmental
Impact Statements.
8 Flowchart for OR&M.
9 Flowchart for OSWMP.
AUTHORITY; Sees. 102, 103, 83 Slot. 854.
Subparf A—General
§6-10 Purpose and policy.
(a) The National Environmental Pol-
icy Act of 19G9, implemented by Execu-
tive Order ll^H and the Council on
Environmental Quality's Guidelines of
April 23, 1971 (36 FR 7724). reqoires
that all agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment prepare detailed environmental
statements on proposals for legislation
and other major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. The objective of the Act is
to build into the agency decisionmaking
process an appropriate and" careful con-
sideration of all environmental aspects
of proposed actions.
(b) This part establishes Environmen-
tal Protection Agency policy and proce-
dures for the identification and analysis
of the environmental impact of Agency
actions, and the preparation and proc-
essing of environmental impact state-
ments when significant impacts on the
environment are anticipated.
§.6.11 Definitions.
(a) "Environmental assessment" Is a
written analysis submitted to the Agency
by its grantees or contractors describing
the environmental impacts of actions
undertaken with the financial support
of the Agency.
. (b> "Environmental review" is a for-
mal evaluation undertaken by the Agency
to determine whether a proposed Agency
action may have a significant impact on
the environment.
"Notice of intent" is a memoran-
dum announcing- to Federal, State, and
local agencies, and to interested persons.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 33, NO. II—WEDNESDAY", JANUARY 17. 1973
157
-------
that a draft environmental Impact state-
ment will be prepared and processed.
(d) "Environmental Impact state-
ment" Is a report, prepared by the
Agency, which Identifies and analyzes
In detail the environmental Impacts of
an Agency action.
(e) "Negative declaration" is a written
announcement, prepared subsequent to
the environmental review, which states
the Agency has decided not to prepare
an environmental impact statement.
(f) "Environmental impact appraisal"
Is an abbreviated document, based on an
environmental review, which supports a
negative declaration. It describes a pro-
posed Agency action, its expected envi-
ronmental .impact, and the basis for the
conclusion that no significant impact is
anticipated.
(g) "Responsible official" will usually
be either a Regional Administrator or a
Deputy Assistant Administrator. He is
responsible for assuring that environ-
mental reviews are conducted and, if
necessary, that environmental Impact
statements and other associated docu-
ments are prepared. "Responsible offi-
cials" are identified for the various
Agency program offices in the subparts
following Subpart D.
(h) "Interested persons" are individ-
uals, groups, organizations, corporations,
or other nongovernmental units, includ-
ing an applicant for an Agency contract
or grant and conservation groups, who
may be interested in, affected by, or tech-
nically competent to comment on the
environmental impact of the proposed
Agency action.
§ 6.12 Summary of the environmental
impart statement process.
(a) Environmental review. An environ-
mental review shall be made of proposed
and certain ongoing actions (as required
in § 6.13(c> > of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. This process shall con-
sist of a study of the program or project,
identifying and evaluating the expected
and potential environmental impacts of
the action. The purpose of this review
is to determine whether any significant
impacts are anticipated and if an envi-
ronmental impact statement is required.
The Agency has overall responsibility for
this, review, although its grantees and
contractors will contribute to the review
through environmental assessments they
have submitted. (Types of grants, con-
tracts, and other actions requiring such
assessments are specified in the subparts
following Subpart D of this part.)
(b> Notice of intent and impact state-
ments. Where the environmental review
indicates significant environmental im-
pacts, a notice of Intent shall be pub-
lished, and a draft environmental impact
statement shall be prepared and distrib-
uted. After external coordination and
evaluation of the comments received,
a final environmental Impact statement
shall be prepared and distributed.
(c) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. When the envi-
ronmental review does not indicate any
significant Impacts, a negative declara-
tion to this effect shall be Issued. For the
RULES AND REGULATIONS
cases specified in the subparts following
Subpart D of this part, an environmental
impact appraisal shall be prepared,
which summarizes the Impacts, alterna-
tives, and the reasons an impact state-
ment was not prepared. It shall remain
on file and shall be available for public
inspection.
(d) The environmental impact state-
ment process is shown graphically in
Exhibit 1.
§6.13 Applicability.
o> Actions covered. This part applies
<1> All Agency legislative proposals;
(2) Favorable reports on legislation
initiated elsewhere and not accompanied
by an impact statement, provided it is
not excluded in paragraph (b) (4) and
(5) of this section;
(3) Direct Agency activities;
(4) Activities of its grantees and con-
tractors that are financially supported
in whole or in part by the Agency, ex-
cept as noted in paragraph .(b) of this
section.
(b) Actions excluded. The following
Agency actions are not subject to the re-
quirements of this part:
(1) Administrative procurements (e.g..
general supplies);
(2) Contracts for consulting services;
(3) Personnel actions;
(4) Legislative proposals originating
in another Agency;
(5) Legislative proposals not relating
to or affecting the matters within EPA's
primary areas of responsibility;
(6) Environmentally protective regu-
latory activities.
(c) Retroactive application. This reg-
ulation shall apply to uncompleted and
continuing Agency actions initiated prior
to the promulgation of these procedures
when substantial funds have not been
released and modifications of or alter-
natives to the Agency action are still
available. An environmental impact
statement shall be prepared for each
project found to have significant envi-
ronmental consequences, as determined
in accordance with I 6.20,
(d) Application to legislative propo-
sals. Except as noted in paragraphs (b)
(4) and (5) of this section, environmen-
tal impact statements shall be prepared
for legislative proposals or favorable re-
ports relating to legislation. Because of
the nature of the legislative process, im-
pact statements for legislation must be
prepared and reviewed in accordance
with the procedures followed in the de-
velopment and review of the legislative
matter. These procedures are described
in Office of Management and Budget
Circular No. A-19; separate procedures,
therefore, have not been provided in
this part. Where appropriate, legislative
statements will contain the information
required in 5 6.32.
(e) Application to annual budget esti-
mates. An annual listing of those Agency
actions which will require the prepara-
tion of environmental impact statements
shall be compiled each year as specified
In Office of Management and Budget
Bulletin No. 72-6. Agency components
1697
shall submit with their budget estimates
a listing of those projects for which they
expect to prepare impact statements. Ap-
plicable portions of Subpart B of this
part shall be utilized to review projects
to determine if they will have a signifi-
cant impact.
§6.14 General responsibilities.
(a) Responsible official. (1) Requires
contractors and grantees to submit en-
vironmental assessments and assures en-
vironmental reviews are conducted on
proposed Agency projects at the earliest
practicable point in the Agency's project
formulation process.
(2) When required, assures that draft
statements are prepared and distributed
at the earliest practicable point in the
Agency's project formulation process,
their internal and external review is co-
ordinated, and final statements are pre-
pared and distributed.
(3) When an impact statement is not
prepared, assures that negative declara-
tions and environmental appraisals are
prepared and distributed for those ac-
tions requiring them.
(b) Office of Federal Activities. <1>
Provides Agencywide policy guidance
and assures that Agency components es-
tablish and maintain adequate adminis-
trative procedures to comply with this
part.
(2) Monitors the overall timeliness
and quality of the Agency effort to com-
ply with this part.
(3) Provides assistance to "responsible
officials" as required.
(4) Coordinates the training of per-
sonnel involved in the review and prepa-
ration of environmental impact state-
ments.
(5) Acts as Agency liaison with the
Council on Environmental Quality and
other Federal and State entities on mat-
ters of Agency policy and administrative
mechanisms to facilitate external re-
view of Agency environmental impact
statements, to determine lead Agency.
and to improve the uniformity of the
NEPA procedures of Federal agencies.
(6) Advises the Administrator and
Deputy Administrator on projects which
involve more than one Agency com-
ponent, are highly controversial, are na-
tionally significant, or "pioneer" Agency
policy, when these projects have had or
should have an environmental impact
statement prepared on them.
(c) Office of Public Affairs. (1) Assists
the Office of Federal Activities and "re-
sponsible officials" by answering the
public's queries on the impact statement
process and on specific impact state-
ments, and by directing requests for
copies of specific documents to the ap-
propriate regional office or program.
(2) Analyzes the present procedures
for public participation, and develops and
recommends to the Office of Federal
Activities a program to improve those
procedures and increase public partici-
pation.
(d) Regional Office Division of Public
Affairs. (1) Assists the "responsible of-
ficial" or his designee on matters per-
taining to negative declarations, notices
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 11—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
158
-------
RULES AND REGUIATIONS
of intent, press n-le).
§ 6.15 Timing for proposed Agency ac-
tions on which impact statements are
to be prepared.
(a) Except when requested by the "re-
sponsible official" in writing and ap-
proved by the Council on Environmental
Quality, no administrative action shall
be taken sooner than ninety (90) calen-
dar days after a draft statement has
been distributed or sooner than thirty
(30) calendar days after the final state-
ment has been distributed. If the final
statement is filed within ninety (90)
calendar days after the dralt statement
has been circulated and made public, the
thirty (30) act staleuH'Hl.
The following general guidelines shall
bo used uiiei! revie'.virpr an Agf-ncy action
to determine if it will have a significant
impact oji the environment and there-
fore require an impact statcment.-
(a) Significant environmental effects.
(1) Actions having both beneficial and
detrimental effects may be classified as
having significant effects on the environ-
ment even if, on balance, the Agency be-
lieves that the net effect will be beneficial.
Impact statements should be prepared
first on those proposed actions with the
most adverse effects.
X2) Significant effects should include
both primary and secondary conse-
quences of short term and long term
duration. Secondary consequences result
from activities encouraged or induced by
the Agency action, long term effects
should be given particular attention in
the determination of significant effects.
(3) The total expected environmental
impact of precedent-setting actions and
individually small but cumulatively large
actions shall be identified and considered
fully. If the Agency is taking a number of
minor, environmentally insignificant
actions that are similar in execution and
purpose, especially when they are taken
during a limited time span and in the
same genera] geographic area, the cumu-
lative environmental Impact of all of
these actions, may be significant.
(b) Controversial actions. An environ-
mental impact statement shall be pre-
pared and processed when the environ-
mental impact of an Agency action is
likely to,be highly controversial.
§ 6.21 Environmental review.
(a) Proposed and certain ongoing
Agency actions as specified In J 6.13(e)
shall be subjected to an environmental
review. This review shall be a continuing
one and should commence at the earliest
possible point in the development of the
project. It shall consist of a study of
the proposed program or project which
identifies and evaluates the expected and
potential environmental impacts of the
action and alternatives to it. It will de-
termine whether a significant impact is
anticipated from the proposed action.
The outcome of an environmental review
will be either the preparation of an im-
pact statement or preparation of a nega-
tive declaration.
(b) When making this determination,
a general class of actions occurring
within a common time frame may be
treated as a single action if their in-
dividual environmental .effects and al-
ternatives are substantially similar.
(c) To assist the "responsible official"
in reviewing the proposed action, appli-
cants for a grant or contract may be re-
quired to submit with their original ap-
plication an environmental assessment.
The types of grants and contracts re-
quiring such assessments are specified
in the siibparts following Subpart D of
this part. The Agency may also request
additional environmental data or anal-
yses to supplement the !i?scssni": in-
forming the public that an impact staie-
inent will be prepared on n particular
project. News releases may be submitted
to other media as appropriate.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 3B, NO. U— WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
159
-------
(c) Regional office assistance to pro-
gram offices. Regional offices will pro-
vide assistance to program, offices In tak-
ing these specific actions when the state-
ment orginates In a program office.
§ 6.23 Draft impact statements.
(a) General. (1) The "responsible
official" shall assure that a draft-environ-
mental Impact statement is prepared as
soon as practicable after the release of
the notice of intent. Prior to release to
CEQ, the draft statement may be circu-
lated for review to other offices within
the Agency with collateral interest in or
technical expertise related to the action.
Afterwards, the draft statement shall be
sent to CEQ and circulated to Federal,
State, and local agencies with special ex-
pertise or jurisdiction by law, and to In-
terested persons. If the responsible offi-
cial determines that a public hearing on
the project is warranted, the hearing will
be held after preparation of the draft
statement and hi accordance with the
requirements of 8 6.41. Comments from
both the hearing and written replies shall
be Incorporated In the final environ-
mental Impact statement.
(3) Draft impact statements should be
prepared at the earliest practicable point
in the project development. Where a
plan or program has been developed by
the Agency or submitted to the Agency
for approval, the relationship between
the plan and the subsequent projects en-
compassed by it shall be evaluated to
determine the preferable and most
meaningful point in time for preparing
an impact statement. Where practicable,
an environmental Impact statement will
be drafted for the total program at the
overall planning stage. Subsequently,
component projects included in the plan
will not require Individual statements
unless they deviate substantially from
prior plans, or unless the plans do not
provide sufficient detail to fully assess
significant Impacts of individual projects.
Plans shall be reevaluated by the respon-
sible official to monitor the cumulative
Impact of the component projects and to
preclude the plans' obsolescence.
(b) Specific actions. The specific ac-
tions that should be taken with respect
to draft Impact statements are as
. follows:
(1) Before transmitting the draft
statement to the Council on Environmen-
tal ' Quality, the "responsible official"
shall:
<1) Notify by phone the Office of Fed-
eral Activities and the Headquarters im-
pact statement coordinator for the pro-
gram office originating the statement
that a draft Impact statement has been
prepared. When the originating office Is
a regional office and the project Is re-
lated to water quality management, the
Regional Administrator will notify by
phone the Office of Federal Activities
and the Water Quality and Non-Point
Source Control Division, Office of Water
Programs Operations, that the draft Im-
pact statement has been prepared.
-------
1700
KUJ.ES AND REGULATIONS
Subport C—Content of Environmental
Impact Statements
§ 6.30 Cover sheet.
The cover sheet shall indicate the type
of statement (draft or final), the official
project name, the responsible Agency
office, the date, and the signature of the
responsible official. The foa-Jnat is shown
in Exhibit 6.
§ 6.31 Summary siicct.
The summary sheet shall conform to
the format prescribed in Appendix 1 of
the April 23, 1071, Council on Environ-
mental Quality's Guidelines. The format
is shown in Exhibit 7.
§6.32 Body of .statement.
The body of the impact statement shall
contain seven sections. Each shall iden-
tify, develop, and analyze the pertinent
issues. Impact statements shall not be
justification documents for proposed
Agency funding or actions. Rather, they
shall be objective evaluations of actions
and their alternatives in light of all
environmental considerations. Environ-
mental impact statements shall be
prepared using a systematic, interdisci-
plinary approach. Statements shall in-
corporate all relevant analytical disci-
plines and shall provide meaningful and
factual data, information, and analyses.
The presentation should be simple and
concise, yet include all facts necessary to
permit independent evaluation and ap-
praisal of the beneficial and adverse en-
vironmental effects of alternative actions.
To the extent possible, statements shall
not be drafted in a style which requires
extensive scientific or technical expertise
to comprehend and evaluate the environ-
mental impact of an Agency action.
(a) Description of the proposed action.
Describe the recommended or proposed
action, its purpose, where it is located,
its time setting, and its interrelationship
with other projects or proposals. To pre-
vent piecemeal decisionmaking, the proj-
ect shall be described in as broad a con-
text as possible. The relationship to other
projects and proposals shall be discussed,
including not only other Agency activi-
ties, but also those ol other Govern-
mental and private organizations. De-
velopment and population trends in the
project area shall also be included. Maps,
photos, and artist sketches should be in-
corporated where they help depict the
environmental setting. If not enclosed,
supporting references and documents
should be identified. The statement
should also Indicate how such documents
may be obtained.
(b) Environmental impact of the pro-
posed action. (1) Describe the primary
and secondary environmental impacts,
both beneficial and adverse, anticipated
from the action. The scope of the descrip-
tion shall include both short- and long-
term impacts. It shall include specifics on
the area, the resources involved, physical
changes, alterations to ecological systems,
and changes induced by the proposed ac-
tion in population distribution, popula-
tion concentration, the human use of
land (including commercial and residen-
tial development*, and other aspects of
the resource base such as water and pub-
lic services. The time frames in. which
these impacts are anticipated should be
included as well.
(2) Remedial, protective, and mitiga-
tivc measures which will JDC taken as part
of the proposed action shall be identified.
These measures to prevent, eliminate, re-
duce, or compensate for any environmen-
tally detrimental aspect of the proposed
action shall include those of the Agency
and others, e.g., its contractors and
grantees. Adverse impacts which cannot
be substantially avoided will be con-
sidered in greater detail in the next
section.
(-c) Adverse impacts which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be imple-
mented. Describe the kinds and magni-
tudes of adverse impacts which cannot be
reduced in severity or which can be re-
duced to an acceptable level but not
eliminated. For those which cannot be
'reduced, their implications and the rea-
sons why the action is being proposed,
notwithstanding their effect, shall be de-
scribed in detail. Where abatement
measures can reduce adverse impacts to
acceptable levels, the basis for consider-
ing these levels adequate and the effec-
tiveness and costs of the abatement
measures shall be specified. In particular,
this analysis shall detail the aesthetically
or culturally valuable surroundings,
human health, standards of living, or en-
vironmental goals set forth in section
101 (b) of the National Environmental
Policy Act which would be sacrificed.
Also, it shall describe the parties affected
(including any minority communities)
and any objections raised by them.
(d) Alternatives to the proposed action.
Develop, describe, and objectively weigh
alternatives to any proposed action which
involves significant tradeoffs among!the
uses of available environmental re-
sources. The analysis shall be structured
,in a manner which allows comparisons
of: U) Environmental and financial cost
differences among equally effective al-
ternatives, or <2) differences in effective-
ness among equally costly alternatives.
Where practicable, benefits and costs
should be quantified or described quali-
tatively in a way which will aid in a more
objective judgment of their value. Where
such an analysis is prepared, it shall be
appended to the statement. The analysis
of different courses of action shall in-
clude alternatives capable of substanti-
ally reducing or eliminating any adverse
impacts, even at the expense of reduced
project objectives. The specific alterna-
tive of taking no action must always be
evaluated. This analysis shall evaluate,
alternatives in such a manner that re-
viewers independently can judge their
relative desirability. In addition, the
reasons why the proposed action is be-
lieved by the Agency to be the best course
of action shall be explained. On projects
that will involve construction, alternative
sites must be considered.
(e) Relationship between local short-
term uses of man's environment and the
•maintenance and enhancement of long'
term productivity. Describe the cumula-
tive and louff-tcrm effects of the pro-
posed action which either significantly
reduce or enhance the state of the en-
vironment for future generations. In par-
ticular, the desirability of Acency actions
shall be weighed to guard apainst short-
sighted foreclosure of future options or
needs. Special attention shall be given
to effects which narrow the range or
beneficial uses of the environment or pose
long-term risks to health or safety. Those
who may financially profit or suffer losses
from uses of natural resources that may
result from the proposed project (es-
pecially land) shall be identified. In ad-
dition, the reasons the proposed action is
believed by the Agency to be justified
now, rather than reserving a long-term
option for other alternatives, including
no use, shall be explained.
(f) Irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitments oj resources which mould be in-
volved in the proposed action should it
be implemented. Describe the extent to
which the proposed action curtails the
diversity and range of beneficial uses of
the environment. Uses of renewable and
nonrenewable resources during the initial
and continued phases of the action shall
be specified. In this regard, construction
and facility uses are basically irreversible
since a large commitment of resources
makes removal or nonuse thereafter un-
likely. Such primary impacts and, par-
ticularly, secondary impacts (e.g., open-
ing areas to further development) gener-
ally commit future generations to similar
uses. Also, irreversible damage can re-
sult from environmental accidents as-
sociated with the action. Any irretriev-
able and significant commitments of re-
sources shall be evaluated to assure that
such current consumption is Justified.
(g) A discussion of problems and ob-
jections raised by other Federal, State,
and local agencies and by interested per-
sons in this review process. Final state-
ments (and draft statements if appropri-
ate) shall summarize the comments and
suggestions made by reviewing organi-
zations and shall describe the disposition
of issues surfaced (e.g.. revisions to the
proposed action to mitigate anticipated
impacts or objections). In particular,
they shall address in detail the major
issues raised -when the Agency position
is at variance with recommendations and
objections (e.g., reasons specific com-
ments and suggestions could not be ac-
cepted, and factors of overriding im-
portance prohibiting the incorporation-
of suggestions). Reviewer's statements
should be set forth in a "comment" and
discussed in a "response." In addition,
the source of all comments should be
clearly identified and copies of the com-
ments should be -attached to the final
statement.
Subport D—Public Participation
§ 6.40 General.
Public participation is an integral part
of the Agency planning process. It con-
sists of continuous, two-way communica-
tion keeping the public fully informed
about the status and progress or studies
and findings, and actively
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 38, NO. 11—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY-IT, 1973
161
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1701
comments from all concerned and af-
fected groups and Individuals.
§ 6.41 Public bearings.
(a) Public hearings on draft impact
statements shall be held when the "re-
sponsible official" determines that a pub-
Bc hearing would facilitate the resolution
of conflict or significant public contro-
versy.
(b) When public hearings are to be
held, the Agency must notify the public
of the hearing immediately after distri-
bution of the draft statement. This public
notification must include at least fifteen
(15) days prior to the date of such hear-
ing:
(1) Notification to the public by ade-
quate advertisement identifying the
project, announcing the date, time, and
place of such hearing, and announcing
the availability of detailed information
on the proposed project for public in-
spection at one or more locations in the
area in which the project will be located.
"Detailed information" shall include a
copy of the project application and the
draft environmental impact statement.
(2) Notification to the appropriate
State and local agencies and to the ap-
propriate State and metropolitan clear-
inghouses.
(3) Notification to interested persons.
(c) A written record of the hearing
shall be made. As a minimum, the rec-
ord shall contain a list of witnesses to-
gether with the text of each presentation.
Generally, a stenographer should be
used. A summary of the record, including
the Issues raised, conflicts resolved and
unresolved, and any other significant
portions of the record, shall be appended
to the final impact statement.
(d) When a public hearing has been
held by another Federal, State, or local
agency on an Agency action, additional
hearings need not necessarily ensue. The
"responsible official" shall decide if addi-
tional hearings are required.
-------
1702
(d) Puitlic Affairs Division, Regional
Offices. The responsibilities oi the re-
gions' Public Affairs Division in addition
to those in I G.14 of Subpart A of this
part are to:
(1) Assist the Regional Administrator
in the preparation and dissemination of
negative declarations, notices of intent,
press releases, and other public notices.
<2) Collaborate with the Headquar-
ters Office of Public Affairs to analyze
procedures in the regions for public par-
ticipation and to develop and recommend
to the Office of Federal Activities a pro-
gram to improve those procedures.
§ 6.54 Criteria for preparation of envi-
ronmental impact stiitciiirnls.
The Regional Administrator will as-
sure that an impact statement will be
prepared for treatment works and plans
(Sec additional conditions for plans in
8 6.55(d)) when:
(a) The treatment" works will induce
or encourage significant changes in in-
dustrial, commercial, or residential con-
centrations or distributions, the effects
of which are not adequately reflected in
an impact statement on the water qual-
ity management or area wide plans en-
compassing the works. Factors that must
be considered in determining if induced
changes are significant include but are
not limited to: the land area subject to
Increased development as a result of the
treatment works; the relative increase
In population which may be induced;
the potential for overloading sewage fa-
cilities; the extent to which landowners
may benefit from the areas subject to
increased development; and the nature
of land use regulations in the affected
area and their potential effects on the
development.
(b) The works or plan will result in
a significant displacement of population.
(c) The -works or plan will have sig-
nificant adverse imparts on public parks
or other areas of recognized scenic or
recreational value.
(d) The works or plan will have sig-
nificant adverse impacts on areas of rec-
ognized archeological value or properties
listed in or being considered for nomina-
tion to the National Register of Histori-
cal Places.
(e) The works or plan will significantly
deface an existing residential area.
(f) The works or plan will include or
induce development which will have a
significant adverse effect upon local am-
bient air Quality, local ambient noise
levels, surface or groundsvater quality,
fish, wildlife, their natural habitats, or
other natural elements.
(g) The works or plan involves a sig-
nificant diversion of effluent from one
basin to another' (or to the ocean) and
the diversion will adversely affect the
quality or quantity of the water in a
basin.
(h) The treated effluent is being dis-
charged into a body of water where the
present classification is being challenged
as too lovr to protect present uses, and
the effluent will not be of sufficient qual-
ity to meet the requirements of such
•uses.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(i) The environmental impact of the
works or plan is hiubly controversial
based on environmental issues raised by
a paity or pwlies with rccoGnized legal
standing as defined in Sierra Club v.
Morton, f»2 S.Ct. 1361 (Apr. ID, 1D72),
which can be found in 3 Environment
Reporter Cases (ERC) 2039.
§ 6.53 I'locriliirc* for preparation of
impart Ktalcmrnls for plans.
(a) General. (1) Areawide waste
treatment management plans set forth
in Section 208 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Conti'Ol Act Amendments of 1972
will be required pursuant to 40 CFR Part
35. Areawide plans must be certified by
the Governor or his desisnee and ap-
proved by the Administrator. Once a plan
is approved, the Administrator shall not
make any grant for construction of a
publicly owned treatment works except
for a works in conformity with this plan.
(2) Until areawide plans are devel-
oped, other plans will be required pur-
suant to Part 35 of this chapter.
(b) Environmental assessment, and
public hearing. (1) General. An environ-
mental assessment must be included as
an integral part of any plans submitted
for approval pursuant to Part 35 of this
chapter. In addition, a record of a public
hearing must be submitted with such
plans. The Regional Administrator may
also require a grant applicant to submit
an assessment and record of public hear-
ing for any water quality management
planning that he considers relevant to
a proposed wastewater treatment works.
Failure to satisfy any of these require-
ments will justify a refusal by the Re-
gional Administrator to approve plans
and specifications for treatment works.
(2) The environmental assessment must
be included as an integral part of the
plan whether or not Federal technical
or financial assistance was utilized in the
development of the plan. The assessment
of alternatives must include as a mini-
mum those items listed in paragraph (b)
(4) of this section. A separate summary
of the assessment incorporated in the
plan may be requested by regional-
personnel.
(3) Responsibility for the environ-
mental assessment. The planning agency
responsible for developing the required
plans shall include as part of the plan
an environmental assessment of all fea-
sible alternative water quality manage-
ment strategies. Prior to acceptance of
the plan, regional personnel shall review
the plan and record of public hearing to
assure that environmental matters have
been properly considered. If any of the
data or analyses in the plan are used by
the regional personnel in developing an
impact statement, the Regional Admin-
istrator must assume responsibility for
the reliability and comprehensiveness of
the data or analyses used.
(4) Content of assessment incorpo-
rated in the plan. In assessing the envi-
ronmental impacts of alternative water
quality management strategies, the State
or local agency responsible for develop-
ing the plan shall as a minimum address
in writing the questions ouUini-d in the
National Environmental Policy Act. The
questions arc amplified in § (>M2 of Sub-
part C of this; part, paragraphs (a)
through (e>. The questions in ? 6.32 fa>,
(b), 'd, (e), and (f) must be answcrec'
for each alternative strategy and those
in I 6.32 (d) and (g) must be answered
considering all the alternatives.
(5) Adequacy of assessment. If the en-
vironmental assessment incorporated in
the plan is judged inadequate, further
consideration of the request for approval
of the plan must be deferred until the
deficiencies are remedied in writing.
(6) Public hearing. A record of a pub-
lic hearing on the plan must be submit-
ted with any plan required pursuant to
paragraph (b)(l) of this section Hear-
ing requirements are set forth in ? 6.53
of this subpart. The hearing should be
held before the plan is finalized so that
the public can assist the planning agency
in identifying valid environmental issues
while the plan is being formulated.
(c) Environmental review. The Agency
will review, in accordance with 5 6.20 oi
Subpart B and § 6.54 of this subpart, all
plans submitted for approval or plans on
which assessments were requested, to de-
termine if they will have any significant
impacts on the environment. If the Re-
gional Administrator determines that
there may be such impacts, the applicant
may be requested to submit additional
environmental data or analyses. The ap-
plicant will be given written notice of
what additional material he must sub-
mit under these circumstances.
(d) Notice of intent and impart slatf-
mcnt. If the environmental review indi-
cates a significant impact on the envi-
ronment and if either of the following
conditions is met, the Regional Admin-
istrator shall issue a notice of intent and
prepare an impact statement on the plan
in accordance with the procedures in
Subpart B of this part:
(1) If the impacts are such that they
cannot be adequately treated on a
smaller scale than that of the plan, e.g.,
diversion of water from one river basin
to another, or gradual depletion of the
groundwater aquifer over a large area
because of discharge of the effluent
through ocean outfalls rather than using
it to recharge the aquifer;
(2) If the plan is sufficiently detailed
to permit at least partial environmental
analysis of most of the treatment works
encompassed by It, thus minimizing
either the number of impact statements
that may have to be written on individ-
ual works in the planning area at a later
date or reducing the amount of effort
that would have to be expended in pre-
paring such statements at a later date.
Notices of intent and impact state-
ments shall be prepared and distributed
in accordance with the procedures in
Subpart B of this part.
(e) Negative declaration. If the re-
gional personnel, after completion of the
environmental review, determine that the
plan will not have a significant impact
on the environment, or that neither of
the conditions set forth In paragraphs
(d) (1) and (2) of this section, are met. a
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. H—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY J7, 1973
163
-------
negative declaration shall be prepared In
accordance with the procedures in Sub-
part B of this part.
§ 6.56 - Procedures for preparation of
impact statements for wastewater
treatment works.
(a) General. (1) The States and their
political subdivisions have primary re-
sponsibility for water pollution control.
Treatment works generally are initiated
and designed by a community or a re-
gional authority and submitted to the
State for approval. The construction
grant program administered by the
Agency provides Federal financial assist-
ance to any State, municipality, or inter-
municipal or interstate agency for the
construction of treatment works. The in-
tent of this program is to assist the State
and local entities in meeting their waste
treatment responsibilities.
(2) Although the Agency does not par-
ticipate directly in the formulation of
treatment works proposals, it does pro-
vide guidance to assure construction of
well-designed treatment works which
will meet water quality standards and
other requirements. En addition, to sat-
isfy the requirements of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969, the
Agency must determine if the proposed
treatment works will have a significant
impact upon the environment and, if so,
prepare and circulate an environmental
impact statement before awarding the
grant. This assures that environmental
considerations are properly accounted
for hi the final design.
(b) Environmental assessments and
public hearings.—(1) General, (i) Appli-
cants for grants for treatment works
shall prepare an assessment and hold a
public hearing for each treatment works.
The assessment and heating record shall
be submitted prior to approval of plans,
specifications, and detailed design draw-
ings submitted for approval. The Re-
gional Administrator may in consultation
with the applicant determine that a sin-
gle assessment and public hearing will
suffice for a number of related treatment
works. The plans, specifications, and de-
tailed design drawings cannot be ap-
proved unless an adequate assessment
has been developed by the applicant and
has been commented on by the State and
local clearinghouses pursuant to Office
of Management and Budget Circular No.
A-95.
(ii) When a number of separate grant
applications are being submitted In a
fiscal year for treatment works that are
constituent parts of a larger system, re-
gional personnel may delay approval of
plans and specifications for the various
treatment works until some or all of the
works and then- assessments Can be re-
viewed together to allow the Agency to
properly evaluate the cumulative impact
of the individual works. The regional
personnel may also request environmen-
tal information from an applicant(s) on
the cumulative environmental impacts of
the treatment works and alternatives to
them, if th}s information is not available
in the applications, assessments, or
plan(s) encompassing the projects (see
also!6.56(e)).
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(iii) As specified in { 6.52(c) of this
subpart, ongoing projects must also be
reviewed. If it appears that an impact
statement may be required or that suffi-
cient environmental information is not
available to make a proper determina-
tion, the grant applicant may be re-
quested to submit an environmental as-
sessment which would provide the
needed information.
(2) Responsibility for preparation of
assessments—(i) Applicant's responsi-
bility. The applicant, is responsible for
preparing an adequate environmental
assessment for a treatment works.
(ii) Regional offices. The regional per-
sonnel are responsible for the approval
or disapproval of plans and specifications
and the acceptance of an assessment.
Regional personnel shall review the ap-
plicant's assessment and determine the
reliability of the applicant's data and the
adequacy of the alternatives discussed.
This may involve field inspection of the
sites of proposed works. If the assess-
ment is used by the regional personnel in
developing an impact statement, the Re-
gional Administrator must assume re-
sponsibility for the reliability and com-
prehensiveness of the data or analyses
used.
(3) Content of assessment. An appli-
cant's environmental assessment must
contain the following:
(i) A comparative evaluation of the
major alternatives Including the pro-
posed treatment works.
(ii) Answers to the six questions out-
lined in S 6.32 (a) through (g). The
questions in $ 6.32 (a), (b), (c), (e). and
(f) must be answered for each alterna-
tive and those in S 6.32 (d) and (g) must
be answered considering all of the
alternatives.
(iii) A complete description of how
the treatment works' design and con-
struction controls will minimise the ad-
verse impact on all aspects of the envi-
ronment.
(4) Adequacy of assessment. If the
assessment is judged inadequate, the
applicant shall be notified that the eval-
uation will be suspended until the defi-
ciencies are remedied in writing. The
assessment will be used in the Agency's
environmental review to determine if
environmental factors are properly in-
corporated into the proposed treatment
works and to determine if an environ-
mental impact statement is required
pursuant to NEPA.
(5) Public hearing. The applicant shall
submit with the assessment a record of
a public hearing held pursuant to ! 6.58
of this subpart. The public hearing
should be held concurrently with the
development of the project design and
environmental assessment. The purpose
of the hearing is to allow the public (en-
vironmental/conservation groups, in-
dustries,'and individuals) to assist the
applicant in Identifying valid environ-
mental Issues which must be considered
in the treatment works development
stage to avoid possible major modifica-
tions at a later date.
(c) Environmental review. An envi-
ronmental review must be conducted for
1703
each treatment works in accordance
with § 6.20 of subpart B of this part and
| 6.54 of this subpart. These reviews must
be conducted as early as practicable in
the grant review process but no later
than prior to the approval of plans,
specifications, and detailed design draw-
ings. The Regional Administrator is re-
sponsible for determining the proper
scope of the NEPA review; he is not nec-
essarily bound by the scope of the treat-
ment works denned in the application.
For example, when a grant application
is for a constituent part of a larger
treatment works, the regional personnel
must also determine whether to conduct
an environmental review on the larger
works before deciding if plans and spec-
ifications should be approved or an im-
pact statement prepared. In deciding
upon the need for a broader environ-
mental review, the regional personnel
must consider if the individual grant is
an irreversible element of the larger
works and if the potential cumulative
impacts of the elements comprising the
larger works can be properly evaluated
in a separate review of each treatment
works. If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that there may be significant
impacts or that a broader environmental
review is required, the applicant may
be requested to submit additional envi-
ronmental data or analyses. The appli-
cant will be given formal written no-
tice of what additional material he must
submit.
(d) Notice of intent and impact state-
ment. If the environmental review de-
scribed in paragraph (c) of this section
indicates a significant impact upon the
environment, the Regional Administra-
tor shall issue a notice of intent and pre-
pare an impact statement on the
appropriate scale proposed action. No-
tices of intent and impact statements
shall be prepared and distributed in
accordance with the procedures in sub-
partB.
(e) Negative declaration. If the re-
gional personnel determine that the
project will not have a significant im-
pact on the environment, a negative
declaration and environmental impact
appraisal shall be prepared in accordance
with the procedures In subpart B of this
part.
§ 6.57 Content of environmental impart
statements.
(a) Environmental impact statements
for treatment works and water quality
management or areawide plans will fol-
low the format described in §-6.32 of
subpart C of this part. The individual
explanations in subpart C on the con-
tents of the various sections to be in-
cluded in the impact statement are also
applicable. The following additional ma-
terial should be included where appro-
priate.
(b) The impact statement section
entitled "Environmental Impact on the
Proposed Project or Plan" shall contain
a description of the environmental Im-
pact that the proposed treatment works
or plan might have on the surrounding
area. Both adverse and beneficial effects
need to be discussed. A brief summary
Ho.ll—Pt.n-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 11—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
164
-------
1704
RULES AND REGULATIONS
of the results of pertinent studies, such
BS the following, should be included:
Topographic analyses (USGS maps);
soil surveys; maps showing aquifer-
recharge areas; bedrock geology showing
fault lines and any other pertinent geo-
logical material; -surface water hydro-
logic information with special emphasis
upon low-flow and flood-flow conditions
and levels, assimilative capacity of the
receiving stream to maintain water
quality standards or goals; potential
water reuse within the system and for
agricultural needs outside of the system;
air, noise, and odor evaluations; aquatic
and -terrestrial wildlife and biological
studies including wetland areas; effects
upon areas of natural value and park
lands; and relocation of people and
compensation. Other factors which
should be addressed, when pertinent,
include: The overall design and opera-
tional reliability of the treatment works
described In the plan; proposed con-
struction techniques: sludge processing
and disposal in relation to alternatives
available; anticipated and potential
odors; reuse and recycling features; tree
clearing controls to be used; erosion
control during construction; and archi-
tectural and landscaping proposals at
the project sites. (The above studies or
factors are not listed in order of im-
portance.)
(c) The impact statement section en-
titled, "Adverse Impacts Which Cannot
be Avoided Should the Proposal be Im-
plemented," shall consider the following
additional specific factors if pertinent:
Wooded or wildlife habitat which will
be lost; stream or downstream impound-
ment; siltation resulting from construc-
tion; possible disruption of & natural,
cultural, or historic setting at or near
the site; effects on general development
of the area; and the Impact of the
additional quantity of flows and associ-
ated residual pollutants upon the re-
ceiving bodies of water.
8 6.58 Public hearing requirements.
(a) General. A public hearing must be
held on all wastewater treatment works,
except when the requirement for such a
hearing is waived by the Regional Ad-
ministrator. A record of a public hearing
must always be included with an area-
vide plan submitted to the Agency for
approval and. when specifically re-
quested by a Regional Administrator in
writing, one must be held on a water
quality management plan. Neither plans,
specifications, and detailed design
drawings for the treatment works, nor
the areawide plan can be approved until
the record of the hearing is received. The
record shall contain, as a minimum, a list
of witnesses together -with the text of
each presentation and a statement that
the participants at the hearing were in-
formed that one of the purposes of the
hearing is to-discuss the environmental
effects of the proposed treatment works
and alternatives to it as required by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
(b) PuW/c «O/:M. (1) The potential
grantee must provide adequate notice to
the public of t;:u hearing. Adequate
notice shall be considered to Include,
at loast thirty (30.» days prior to the date
of such hearing:
(i) Notice given to the public by ade-
quate advertisement Identifying the
works or plan, announcing the date,
time, and place of such hearing, and an;-
nouncing the availability, of detailed in-
formation on the proposed works or plan
for public inspection at one or more lo-
cations in the area in which the works
•will be located. Detailed information
shall include, as a minimum, a complete
description of the works or plan, cost
and financing information, alternatives
to the proposed works or plan, a detailed
description of the effects of the works or
plan on land use, and a statement that
one of the purposes of the hearing is to
discuss the potential environmental im-
pacts of the works or plan and alterna-
tives to it.
(ii) Notification to the appropriate
State and local agencies and to the ap-
propriate State and metropolitan clear-
inghouses.
(ill) Notification to interested environ-
mental and conservation action groups.
(2) The potential grantee shall sub-
mit with the record of the public hear-
ing: (i) a copy of any advertisement pub-
lished, broadcast, or otherwise issued
pursuant to this section; (ii) a list of
those notified; and (ill) a certification
that the hearing was held in accordance
with the notification requirements of this
section:
(c) Waiver of hearing on grant appli-
cations. A request to waive the hearing
on a grant application for a wastewater
treatment works must be submitted in
writing prior to submission of the first
grant application. Such requests will be
acted upon promptly by the Regional
Administrator. Requests must include a
description of the works, the estimated
cost of the works, the area that will be
serviced, and the reasons the grantee
feels a public hearing would not serve the
public interest. Waivers frill, in general,
only be granted for minor works such as
small additions, modifications to exist-
ing works, or cases where a hearing held
on a plan encompassing the works was
sufficiently comprehensive to cover the
works in detail.
§ 6.59 Project commencement.
Plans, specifications, and detailed'de-
sign drawings cannot be approved until
a negative declaration has been prepared
or the thirty (30) day waiting period
after forwarding the final impact state-
ment to CEQ has expired. In addition,
before plans and specifications can be
approved, the proposed treatment works
must be modified to conform with any
changes suggested during the impact
statement process that the Agency deems
necessary. •
Subpart F—Guidelines for the Prep-
aration of Environmental Impact
Statements for Research and Mon-
itoring Projects and Activities
§ 6.60 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general
Agency policies and procedures described
in Subparts A through D by provic'ins dc-
tnileci procedures for the preparation of
impact statements on projects of the
Office of Research and Monitoring-.
§ 6.01 Definitions.
(a) "Project," This term will be used
collectively for the three project types
below.
(1) "Intramural (in house) project."
A project undertaken with resources
other than grant or contract funds.
(2) "Extramural project." A project
undertaken with grant or contract funds.
(3> "Demonstration project." A proj-
ect which shows the applicability of a
piece of developed technology. It is a
project which is carried out at or near
full-scale and has a high probability of
success. A demonstration project is al-
ways an extramural project.
(b) "Appropriate program official."
The official within the Office of Research
and Monitoring tp whom the "responsible
official" delegates most of the work re-
lated to compliance with NEPA.
(c) "Decision official." The individual
responsible for determining if a project
will be funded. The assignment of this
role will vary according to task cost and
delegation of authority.
(d) *'EIS~associated documents.""No-
tice of intent, negative declarations, en-
vironmental appraisals, and news
releases.'
§ 6.62 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to all projects
under the direction of the Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Research and Monitoring
with the partial exception of projects
funded under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972 (to
be called the Act). The specific proce-
dures to be followed for various project
types are set forth in J 6.65 of this
subpart.
(b) Except for those projects discussed
in the next paragraph, projects funded
under the Act are exempt from the com-
plete procedures set forth In J 6.65. How-
ever, a brief environmental review will
be conducted by the appropriate pro-
gram official of all projects funded under
the Act and an environmental impact
statement voluntarily prepared by the
Agency when a project will have any of
the adverse Impacts discussed in § 6.64
of this subpart. Assessments must be
submitted on these projects in accord-
ance with the requirements of { 6.65(a),
but negative declarations and environ-
mental appraisals are not required.
(c) Projects funded under the Act that
will result in construction of any waste-
water treat-nent works or will result in
the Introduction of pesticides, radioac-
tive materials, or other hazardous sub-
stances into the environment, shall not
be exempt from the complete procedures
set forth in ! 6.65 of this subpart. An
EIS will be prepared if the project will
have any of the significant environmen-
tal impacts discussed in J 6.64 of this
subpart.
§ 6.63 Responsibilities.
(a) Responsible official. The "respon-
sible official" for Agency actions covered
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 1 J—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17. 1973
165
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1705
by this subpart is the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Research and Monitoring. The
Assistant Administrator will delegate
most of the work to the appropriate pro-
gram official, The responsibilities of the
"responsible official," in addition to those
in 8 6.14(a) of Subpart A of this part are:
<1) Insures that environmental as-
sessments are submitted, and the ap-
propriate program officials conduct
environmental reviews, prepare impact
statements and other EIS -associated
documents, and take such subsequent
actions as are delegated to them by the
"responsible official."
(2) When projects significantly affect
more than one regional office, are highly
controversial, are of national signifi-
cance, or "pioneer" Agency policy, the
appropriate program official shall have
the ^project's continuation approved by
the Program Management Division, Of-
fice of Program Operations, Assistant
Administrator for Research and Moni-
toring.
(b) Assistant Administrator. The re-
sponsibilities of the Office of the Assist-
ant Administrator as described in § 6.14
(f) of Subpart A of this part shall be
assumed by the Assistant Administrator
for Research and Monitoring for Agency
actions covered by this subpart.
(c) Program Management Division,
Office of Program Operations, Assistant
Administrator for Research and Moni-
toring. (1) Assists the Office of Federal
Activities in coordinating the training of
personnel Involved to the review and
preparation of impact statements and
other ElS-associafced documents.
(2) Advises the Assistant Administra-
tor for Research and Monitoring,
through the Deputy Assistant Adminis-
trator for Program Operations, concern-
ing projects which significantly affect
more than one regional office, are highly
controversial, are of national signifi-
cance, or "pioneer" Agency policy, when
these projects have had or should have
had an environmental impact statement
prepared on. them.
(d) Regional Administrators. The re-
sponsibilities of the Regional Adminis-
trator with regard to projects of the
Office of Research and Monitoring which
affect his region will be to:
(1) Provide technical and administra-
tive assistance in environmental reviews
and in the preparation of impact state-
ments.
(2) Advise the appropriate program
officials and the Program Management
Division, Office of Program Operations,
of any projects which will significantly
affect more than one regional office, are
highly controversial, are of national sig-
nificance, or "pioneer" Agency policy,
when these projects have had or should
have had an environmental impact state-
ment prepared on them.
§6.64 Criteria for the preparation of
environmental impact statements.
(a) An impact statement shall be pre-
pared and processed by the Office of Re-
search and Monitoring when:
(1) The project wffl induce or encour-
age significant changes in industrial,
commercial, or residential concentrations
or distributions, the effects of which are
not adequately reflected in an impact
statement on plans encompassing the
project. Factors that must be considered
in determining if induced changes are
significant include but are not limited
to: the land area subject to increased
development as a result of the project;
the relative increase in population which
the project may induce; the potential for
overloading sewage facilities; the extent
to which landowners may benefit from
the areas subject to increased develop-
ment; and the nature of land use regu-
lations in the affected area and their po-
tential effects on the development.
(2) The project will have significant
adverse impacts on public parks or other
areas of recognized scenic or recreational
value.
(3) The project will have significant
adverse impact on areas of recognized
archeological value or properties listed
in or being considered for nomination to
the National Register of Historical
Places,
(4) The project will significantly de-
face an existing residential area.
(5) The project will include or induce
development which will have a significant
adverse effect upon local ambient air
quality, local ambient noise levels, sur-
face or groundwater quality, fish, wild-
life, their natural habitats, or other
natural elements.
(6) The project involves a significant
diversion of effluent from one basin to
another (or to the ocean) and the di-
version will adversely affect the quality
or quantity of the water in a basin.
(7) When the treated effluent is being
discharged into a body of water where
the present classification is being chal-
lenged as too low to protect present uses,
and the effluent will not be of sufficient
quality to meet the requirements of such
uses.
(8) The environmental impact of a
project is highly controversial based on
environmental issues raised by a party
or parties with recognized legal stand-
ing as defined to Sierra Club v. Morton
92 S.Ct. 1361 (Apr. 19, 1972) which can
be found to 3 Environmental Reporter
Cases CERC) 2039.
(9) The project consists of field tests
involving the introduction of pesticides,
radioactive materials, or other hazardous
substances into the environment by the
Office of Research and Monitoring, its
grantee, or its contractor.
(10) There is a high probability of a
project ultimately being implemented on
a large scale and the broad scale applica-
tion may result in significant impacts,
even if the proposed project will not
have any significant impacts on the im-
mediate area in which Jfc will be lo-
cated.
(b) When a project is conducted com-
pletely within a laboratory or other fa-
cility, and external environmental ef-
fects have been minimized by providing
effective methods for disposal of labora-
tory wastes and effective safeguards to
prevent accidental introductions of haz-
ardous materials to the environment, an
Impact statement win normally not be
necessary.
§ 6.65 Procedures for preparation, dis-
tribution, and review of EIS's and
other EIS-associaled documents.
(a) Environmental assessment:
(1) Environmental assessments shall
be submitted to the Agency on certain
extramural projects. These include all
grant applications and proposals for sole-
source contracts. In the case of competi-
tive proposals, assessments need not be
submitted by potential contractors be-
cause the decision on whether an im-
pact statement is required must be made
and the impact statement or negative
declaration completed by the Agency
before a request for proposal (RFP) is
issued. If there is a question concerning
the need for an assessment, the potential
contractor or grantee should consult with
the appropriate official responsible for
the grant or contract.
(2) The assessment shall contain the
same sections specified for impact state-
ments to § 6.32 to Subpart C of this part.
Copies of § 6.32 (or more detailed guid-
ance when available) and a notice alert-
ing potential grantees and contractors of
the assessment requirements shall be to-
eluded to all grant application kits, at-
tached to letters concerning the sub-
mission of unsolicited proposals, and in-
cluded with all requests for proposals
(RPP's) when such proposals are sole-
source.
(b) Environmental review: The ap-
propriate program official will briefly re-
view all projects to determine which ones
will affect the environment external to
the laboratory or facility to which the
work will be performed. If the project
will not affect the external environ-
ment, no further review is necessary and
a negative declaration stating there will
be no external impacts will be prepared.
If a project will affect the external envi-
ronment, a complete environmental re-
view of the project will be conducted and
a decision made on the need for an im-
pact statement. This must be done before
a grant or contract is made on extra-
mural projects or before project com-
mencement on intramural projects. Proj -
ects involving an RFP shall be reviewed
before release of the RFP.
(1) Projects affecting the environ-
ment external to a laboratory or fa-
cility. On projects which will affect the
environment external to a laboratory or
faculty in which the work will be per-
formed, the appropriate program offi-
cial shall coordinate the review with the
Regional Administrator to whose region
the project wffl be located. This coordi-
nated review will include both an evalua-
tion of any assessment submitted and an
analysis of the need for an impact state-
ment. If either reviewer considers the
assessment inadequate, steps shall be
taken to have it modified to incorporate
the recommendations of that reviewer. If
either reviewer determines that the proj-
ect will have a significant environmental
impact under the guidelines of § 6.20 of
Subpart B o| this part or the criteria of
! 6.64 of this subpart, an Impact state-
ment shall be prepared.
(2) Projects not affecting the environ-
ment external to a laboratory or facility.
If the appropriate program official de-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOl. 38, NO. 11—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 197J
166
-------
1706
RULES AND REGULATIONS
termines that the project will not affect
the environment external to a laboratory,
he will prepare a negative declaration for
the record (an environmental appraisal
is not required) stating that the project
will not affect the external environment
and an impact statement is not required.
He will then forward the negative decla-
ration and other project documents to
the appropriate decision official.
Assists the Office of Federal Ac-
tivities in coordinating the training of
personnel Involved in the review and
preparation of impact statements and
other ElS-associated documents.
(4) Advises the Assistant Administra-
tor for Air and Water Programs con-
cerning projects which significantly af-
fect more than one regional office, are
highly controversial, are of national sig-
nificance, or "pioneer" Agency policy.
when the projects have had or should
have had an environmental impact state-
ment prepared on them.
(b) Assistant Administrator. The re-
sponsibilities of the Office of the Assist-
ant Administrator as described in I 6.14
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1707
(2) The assessment shall contain the
same sections specified for impact state-
ments In § 6.32 of Subpart C of this part.
Copies of ! 6.32 (or more detailed guid-
ance when available) and a notice alert-
ing potential grantees and contractors of
the assessment requirements in 5 6.74 of
this subpart shall be included in all grant
application kits, attached to letters con-
cerning the submission of unsolicited
proposals, and included with all requests
for proposals (RFP's).
(b> Environmental review. All projects,
both those with and without assessments,
shall be reviewed by the "responsible
official" before a grant or contract is
made on extramural projects or before
commencement on intramural projects.
Projects involving an RFP shall be re-
viewed before release of the RFP.
(1) Projects requiring assessments or
having effects external to a facility. On
projects requiring an assessment or proj-
ects not requiring assessments that will
affect the environment external to the
facility in which the work will be per-
formed, the "responsible official" shall
coordinate the review with the Regional
Administrator in whose region the proj-
ect will be located. This coordinated re-
view will include both an evaluation of
any assessment submitted and an anal-
ysis of the need for an impact statement.
If either reviewer considers the assess-
ment Inadequate, steps shall be taken to
have it modified to incorporate the rec-
ommendations of that reviewer. If either
reviewer determines that the project will
have a significant environmental impact
under the guidelines of } 6.20 of Subpart
B of this part, an impact statement shall
be prepared.
(2) Other projects. On projects not
requiring an assessment and not affect-
ing the environment external to a facil-
ity, the "responsible official" will prepare
a negative declaration (an environmental
appraisal is not required) stating that
the project will have no environmental
effects external to the facility in which
the work will be performed.
(c) Notice of intent and environmen-
tal impact statement. (1) If any of the
projects reviewed in paragraph (b) (1)
of this section will have a significant
impact on the environment, the "respon-
sible official" will assure that a notice of
intent and a draft impact statement are
prepared.
(2) The "responsible official" shall
also request the appropriate Regional
Administrator to assist him in the prep-
aration and distribution of the environ-
mental Impact statement. Distribution
will be as specified hi Subpart B of this
part.
(d) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. If the environ-
mental review indicates that a project
discussed in paragraph (b) (1) of this
section will not have any significant en-
vironmental Impacts, the "responsible
official" will prepare a negative declara-
tion and environmental impact appraisal
and, where practicable, distribute them
as described in ! 6.25 in Subpart B of
this part. Bee paragraph (b) (2) of this
section for the procedure to follow on
~**er projects reviewed.
(e) Project commencement. A con-
tract or grant will not be awarded on an
extramural project, nor an intramural
project begun, until a negative declara-
tion has been issued or the thirty (30)
day waiting period after forwarding the
final impact statement to the CEQ has
expired.
Subpart H—Guidelines for the Prep-
aration of Environmental Impact
Statements for Solid Waste Projects
and Activities
§ 6.80 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general
Agency policies and procedures described
in Subparts A through D of this part by
providing detailed procedures for the
preparation of impact statements on
projects of the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs.
§ 6.81 Definitions.
(a) "Project." A discernible effort or
activity to accomplish a specific objective
or end result.
(1) "Intramural (in-house) project."
A project undertaken with resources
other than grant or contract funds.
(2) "Extramural project." A project
undertaken with grant or contract funds.
(b) "Project officer." The individual
responsible for the technical direction
and evaluation of a grantee's or con-
tractor's performance.
(c) "ElS-associated documents." No-
tices of intent, negative declarations, en-
vironmental appraisals, and news re-
§ 6.82 Applicability.
This subpart applies to all projects
undertaken by the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. The specific pro-
cedures to be followed for various proj-
ect types are set forth in 5 5.85 of this
subpart.
§ 6.83 Responsibilities.
(a) Responsible official. The "respon-
sible official" for Agency actions covered
by this subpart is the deputy Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs. The responsibilities of
this "responsible official," in addition to
those in { 6.H(a) of Subpart A of this
part are:
(1) Insure that environmental assess-
ments are submitted by appropriate
grant and contract applicants, and that
project officers conduct environmental
reviews on all projects and take such sub-
sequent actions as are delegated to them
by the "responsible official."
(2) Assist the Office of Federal Ac-
tivities hi coordinating the training of
personnel involved in the review and
preparation of all CIS-associated docu-
ments.
(3) Advise the Assistant Administra-
tor for Categorical Programs concerning
projects which significantly affect more
than one regional office, are highly con-
troversial, are nationally significant, or
"pioneer" Agency policy.
(b) Assistant Administrator. The re-
sponsibilities of the Office of the Assist-
ant Administrator as described in 8 6.14
(t) of Subpart A of this part shall be as-
sumed by the Assistant Administrator
for Categorical Programs for Agency ac-
tions covered by this subpart.
(c) Regional Administrator. The re-
sponsibilities of the Regional Adminis-
trator with regard to projects of the Of-
fice of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams which affect his region will be to:
(1) Assist the "responsible official" in
the project review by commenting on the
project, the project application and the
applicant's environmental assessment.
Among other things, the comments
should identify those projects which will
significantly affect more than one re-
gional office, are highly controversial, na-
tionally significant, or "pioneer" Agency
policy.
(2) Assist the "responsible official" in
the preparation and distribution of EIS-
associated documents.
§ 6.84 Criteria for the preparation of
environmental assessments and im-
pact statements.
(a) Assessment preparation criteria.
Environmental assessments need not be
submitted with all grant applications and
contract proposals. The following sec-
tions describe when an assessment is or
is not required:
(1) Grants—(i) Demonstration Proj-
ects. Environmental assessments must be
submitted with all applications for dem-
onstration grants that will involve con-
struction, land use (temporary or per-
manent), transport, sea disposal, any
discharges into the air or water, or any
other activity having any direct or indi-
rect effects on the environment external
to foe faculty in which the work will be
conducted. Pre-application proposals for
such grants will not require environ-
mental assessments.
(ii) Studies and investigations. Grant
applications for studies and investiga-
tions will not require assessments.
(ill) Training. Grant applications for
training of personnel will not require
assessments.
(iv) PJons. Grant applications for the
development of comprehensive State,
interstate, or local solid waste manage-
ment plans will not require environ-
mental assessments. A detailed analysis
of environmental problems and- effects
should be part of the planning process,
however.
(2) Contracts—(i) Sole-source con-
tract proposals. Before a sole-source con-
tract can be awarded, an environmental
assessment must be submitted with a bid
proposal for a contract which will in-
volve construction, land use (temporary
or permanent), sea disposal, any dis-
charges into the air or water, or any
other activity that will directly or indi-
rectly affect the environment external
to the facility to which the work will
be performed. Assessments will not gen-
erally be required for contracts for
studies, investigations, or training.
(ii) Competitive contract proposals.
Assessments will not generally be re-
quired on competitive contract proposals.
(b) Impact statement preparation cri-
teria. An environmental review shall be
performed on those projects of the Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs on
which an assessment is required or which
KDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 11—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
168
-------
1708
RULES AND REGULATIONS
may have cfTeoU on the environment ex-
tcnu.l to the facility in which the work
vill be performed. The guidelines In
5 C.20 of Subpart B of this part shall be
utilized in determining whether an im-
pact statement shall be prepared.
g 6.8.1 I'roreiliirex for prrgmrnlinn, «lis-
Iribiiliun, anil review of KIS'g ami
oilier ElS-u.ssociiiti-d documents.
(a) Environmental assessment:
(1) Environmental assessments shall
be submitted to the Agency as specified
Jn § 6.84 of this subpart. If there is a
question concerning the need for an as-
sessment, the potential contractor or
grantee should consult with the appro-
priate project officer for the grant or
contract.
(2) The assessment shall contain the
same sections specified for impact state-
ments in | C.32 in Subpart C of this part.
Copies of § 6.32 (or more detailed guid-
ance when available) and a notice alert-
ing- potential grantees and contractors
of the assessment requirements in I 6.84
of this subpart shall be included in all
grant application kits, attached to let-
ters concerning the submission of un-
solicited proposals, and included with all
requests for proposals (RFP's).
(b) Environmental review: An envi-
ronmental review will be conducted on all
projects which require assessments or
which will affect the environment ex-
ternal to the facility in which the work
will be performed. This review must be
conducted before a grant or contract
award is made on extramural projects
or before project commencement on
intramural projects. The guidelines in
I 6.20 of Subpart B will be utilized in de-
termining if the project will have a sig-
nificant environmental effect. This re-
view' will include an evaluation of the
assessment by both the "responsible of-
ficial" and the appropriate Regional Ad-
ministrator. The Regional Adminis-
trator's comments will include his
recommendations on the need for an en-
vironmental impact statement. No de-
tailed review or documentation is re-
quired on projects not requiring an
assessment and not affecting the envi-
ronment external to a facility, other than
this determination.
(c) Notice of intent and environmental
.impact statement: If the project will
have a significant impact on the environ-
ment, the "responsible official" will assure
that a notice of intent and a draft impact
statement are prepared. The "responsible
official" shall request the appropriate
Regional Administrator to assist him In
the distribution of the environmental
impact statement and other EIS-associ-
ated documents. Distribution will be as
specified in Subpart B.
(d) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal: If the environ-
mental review indicates that there will
not be any significant environmental im-
pacts, the "responsible official" will assure
that a negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal are prepared.
These documents need not be prepared
for projects not requiring an environ-
mental review.
Project commencement: A project
or grant will not bo awarded on an extra-
mural project, no:1 an intramural project
begun, until a negative declaration has
been issued (if one is required) or Uie
thirty (30) clay waiting period nftcr for-
warding the final impact statement to the
CEQ has expired.
(f) The environmental impact state-
ment process for the Office of • Solid
Waste Management Programs is shown
graphically in Exhibit 9.
Subpart 1—Guidelines for the Prepa-
ration of Environmental Impact
Statements for Construction of Spe-
cial Purpose Facilities end Facility
Renovations
§ 6.90 • PurpoKo.
This subpart amplifies the general
Agency policies and procedures described
in Subparts A through D by providing
detailed procedures for the preparation
of impact statements on construction
and renovation of special purpose facili-
ties.
§ 6.91 Definitions.
(a) "Special purpose facility." A build-
ing or space, including land incidental to
the use thereof, which is wholly or pre-
dominantly utilized for the special pur-
pose of an agency and not generally
suitable for use for other purposes, as
determined by the General Services
Administration.
(b> "Program of requirements." A
comprehensive document (booklet) de-
scribing program activities to be accom-
plished in the new special purpose
facility or improvement. It includes
architectural, mechanical, structural,
. and space requirements.
(c) "Scope of work." A document sim-
ilar in content to the program of require-
ments but substantially abbreviated. It
Is usually prepared for small-scale
projects..
§ 6.92 Applicability,
(a) Actions covered. These guidelines
apply to all new special purpose facility
construction, activities related to such
construction (e.g., site acquisition and
clearing), and any improvements or
modifications to such facilities having
potential environmental effects external
to the facility. This includes new con-
struction and improvements undertaken
and funded by the Facilities Manage-
ment Branch, Data and Support Systems
Division, Office of Administration; by a
regional office; or by a National Environ-
mental Research Center.
(b) Actions excluded. This appendix
does not apply to those activities of the
Facilities Management Branch, Data and
Support Systems Division, for which the
branch does not have full fiscal respon-
sibility for the entire project. This in-
cludes pilot plant construction, land
acquisition, site clearing, and access road
construction where the Facilities Man-
agement Branch's activity is only sup-
porting a project financed by a program
office. Responsibility for considering the
environmental impacts of such projects
rests with the office managing and fund-
ing the entire project. Other subparts of
this regulation would apply depending
on the nature of the project.
§ 6.93 Kesnoiisiltiliiin:.
(a) Responsible official: The "respon-
sible official" for new construction an-J
modification of special purpose facilities
i:i as follows:
(1) The Chief, Facilities Management
Branch, Data and Support Systems Di-
vision, shall be the responsible official
on all new construction of special pur-
pose facilities and on all improvement
and modification projects for which the
Facilities Management Branch has re-
ceived a funding allowance.
<2) The Regional Administrator shall
be the responsible official on all improve-
ment and modification projects for which
the regional office has received the fund-
ing allowance.
(3) The Center Director shall be the
responsible official on all improvement
and modification projects for which Na-
tional Environmental Research Centers
have received the funding allowance.
(b) The responsibilities of the respon-
sible officials specified above, in addition
to those in § 6.14(a) of subpart A of this
part, are as follows:
(1) Ensure that environmental assess-
ments are submitted when requested,
that environmental reviews are .con-
ducted on all projects, and Impact state-
ments are prepared and circulated when
there will be significant impacts.
(2) Assist the Office of Federal Activi-
ties in coordinating the training of per-
sonnel involved in the review and prepa-
ration of impact statements and other
ElS-associated documents.
§ 6.94 Criteria for llie preparation of
environmental assessments and im-
pact statements*
(a) Assessment preparation criteria.
An environmental assessment may be
requested of a construction contractor or
consulting architect/engineer employed
by the Agency if they are Involved in the
planning or construction of special pur-
pose facilities or in modifications to such
facilities having potential environmental
effects external to the facility. Such
modifications include but are not limited
to: Facility additions, changes in central
heating systems or wastewater treatment
systems, and land clearing for access
roads and parking lots.
(b) Impact statement preparation cri-
teria. An environmental review shall be
performed on all actions involving con-
struction of special purpose facilities and
on improvements to such f acuities. The
guidelines set forth in I 6.30 pi subpait
B of this part shall be utilized to deter-
mine whether an impact statement shall
be prepared.
§ 6.95 Procedures for preparation, iir-
tribulion, and review of EIS'* and
oilier ElS-assoeialed documents.
(a) Environmental review and assess-
ment. (1) An environmental review shall
be conducted when the program of re-
quirements or scope of woik has been.
completed for the construction. Improves
ment, or modification of special purpo«
facilities. For special purpose facility
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO, 11—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
169
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1709
construction, the Chief, Facilities Man-
agement Branch, shall request the assist-
ance of the appropriate program office
and Regional Administrator in the re-
view. For modifications and improve-
ments, the appropriate responsible offi-
cial shall request assistance In making
the review from other cognizant Agency
components.
(2) If construction contractors or con-
sulting architect/engineers are involved,
the responsible official may require them
to submit an environmental assessment
which will be used in the environmental
review. The assessment shall contain the
same sections specified for impact state-
ments in 5 6.32 of subpart C of this part.
Contractors and consultants shall be
notified in the appropriate contractual
documents of this possibility.
-------
1710
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. Applicant submits environmental as-
segment Rtiil other available data.
2 Agency performs Mivironmental review
at tlit enrllfst possible point In the develop-
moiiv cf the proposed action, decides if au
EIS is required, prepares an EIS if the. pro}-
cct \vili hive a significant impact or If the
project's Impact, - is likely to be highly
controversial.
3. Where required prepare environmental
impact appraisal.
4. Prepare and where practicable circulate
negative declanlior. to Federal. State and lo-
cal agencies. interested persons, local news-
papers, and other media.
5. File Impact appraisal, negative declara-
tloo, and. other supportive documents in-
hovise. (Available for public Inspection)
6. Receive and evaluate comments.
7. Change decision if necessary.
8. Administrative action.
0. Prepare notice of Intent.
10. Circulate notice of intent. •
a. Regional Interests.
• b. Office of Federal Activities.
c. Appropriate headquarters program of-
flee EIS coordinator.
d. Office of Public Affairs.
(;. Forward summitry sheet to OM15-OMSC
(2cvs.).
a»". Regional Interests. .
bh. Puwtc Affairs Division If prepared lu
region {copies as needed).
cc. OPA (2cys.).
fid. Appropriate head q nailers program of-
flee EIS coordinator (2 cys.).
20. Determine need for. public hearing.
21. Circulate public notice.
23. Conduct public hearing.
23. Review and evaluate suggestions, critl-
clsms and comments received nnd reexamine
the proposed course of action nnd alterna-
tivcs. include evaluation of comments gen-
eratcd at public hearing (if held).
24. Prepare final environmental Impact
statement.
25. Submit news release to local iiews-
papers find other media (1 cy.).
26. Distribute final to interests submitting
comments on the draft (1 cy.).
a. Council on Environmental Quality (10
cys. and 2 NTIS accession notice cards).
b. Notify Office of Legislation of release
(cys. as needed).
c. Notify Office of Public Affairs of re-
lease (2 cys.).
NOTICE or INTK.NT MIOGI'STFO IOHK/.T
.... . , , , „
Ac*lcc ?/^ /H/CHf-lnnroTim.-.-i'oJ
*ioi.
sii«tre
Contracts ----- Grants ----- Other $
Applicant share (if any)
(Name) ________ ........ ______ $
Other (specify) _____ .......... „ $
...... "
Total S
. "" ..... " .......
3. Period covered by project:
Beginning date'
'
g. State and local agencies, appropriate aa. Regional interests.. covers more than 1 year)
State, regional and metropolitan clearing- bb. Public Affairs Division If prepared In
houses. region (copies as needed). Dates- of different project phases ---------
h. Interested persons; cc. OFA (2 cys.) .
I. Newspapers and other media as appro- dd. Appropriate headquarters program of- Approximate ending date ----------------
prlate. flee EIS coordinator (2 cys.).
11. Prepare preliminary draft environ- 27. Administrative action. 4, Estimated application filing date ....... .
mental Impact statement, and summary sheet.
(optional). EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3
.- a. Description of the proposed action. NOTICE OF INTENT TRANSMITTAI. MEMORANDUM «,™,.- „,., ,. t r = ,™ r.~
' b. Environmental impact of the proposed SUGGESTED FORMAT NEWS RELEASE SUGGESTED FORMAT
action. Notice to the Public From the Environmental
c. Adverse effects which cannot be avoided Protect-on Aacncv
should the proposal be Implemented. ............ rroieci.on Agency
, 0.. Alternatives to the proposed action. (Date) nils announcement is lo Inform the public
e. Relationship between local short-term ENVIRONMENTAL PBOTECTIOH AGENCY that tne Environmental Protection Agencv
uses of man's environment and the main- ENVIRONMENTAL rROTEcriON AGENCY, •-•,*• -, ^ , . , , ,
tenance and enhancement of long-term pro- (originating office, addiess) (will prepare,
ductivity. --------- - -------------- wlU not prepare, has prepared) a (draft,
f. Irreversible and Irretrievable commit- (Appropriate office) final) environmental impact statement on
ments of resources which would be Involved the following project:
la the proposed action should it be Imple- " ---------- - ------------------------------
merited (Address, City, State, Zip Code)
A" htote— Oo^er* Agencies and '"" ..... IZZZ!^^ ..........
cies, and by private organizations and indl- Public Groups.
Tlduals to date. , GENTLEMEN : In accordance -R-lth the guide- ~i'v-,,T^*~nt~v,n'iIrti
12. Coordinate internally for review and .,,,.. t. , , „ , (Purpose of Project)
comment yith appropriate headquarters and llnes for the P«P«»«OQ ^ environmental
regional elements (optional). impact statements, attached Is a notice of __________________________________________
13. Evaluate comments and revise draft Intent to prepare such a statement for the (Project Location, City, County, State)
accordingly. proposed Agency action specified below:
14. Notify OFA and appropriate head- T^s notice ls to implement the Agencv's
COOrdlnator of ' - ........ — — -------- policy to Inform the public to the maximum
15. Submit draft for review. (Official Project Name) possible extent of environmental actions it
• a. OFA (2 cys.) . . Is taking.
b. Appropriate headquarters program of- — ---------------------- EXHIBIT 4
flee EIS coordinator (2 cys.). (City. State)
16. Consider comments and revise draft " NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUGGESTED FOEMAT
accordingly. . ------------------------ •
17. Prepare transmittal letter with re- (Impact Statement No.) -------------
sponslble official's signature. (Date)
18. Submit news release to local news- If your organization needs additional in-
papers and other media (1 cy.). formation or wishes to participate in the ENVIBONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
19. -Distribute draft and transmittal letter preparation of the draft environmental im-
externallv for review and comments statement, please advise the (appro- ____________ ..... _______
a. Council on environmental quality (10 * , _ ,,,;., ,. . . « ,
cys. and 2 NTIS accession notice cards) . Prlate office- cii*> state> - (Appropriate office)
b. Notify Office of Legislation of release Very truly yours,
(cys. as needed). ' ---------- " •" ..... "
c. Notify Office of Public Affairs of release (Address. City, State, Zip Code)
(2d? Field offices of appropriate Federal agen- (Appropriate EPA Oflice) To All Interested Government Agencies snd
rtes<2cy..). (Llst Federal state Bnrt loca] agrocles to i^ic Groups.
*• "»«««- ^ *«™* ' Cta,™**,: In -orci ,Uh «,. procedure,
Inphouses (2 cys.). (List public action groups to be solicited for for the preparation o' environnic-nttil im-
f. Interested persons (I cy.). comment.) pact statements, an environmental review
FEDERAL RC-GISTEP. VOl. 3C. HO. 11 — W-D.'^SDAY. JANUARY 17. 1973
171
-------
has been performed on the proposed Agency
action below:
(Official Project Name)
(Purpose of Project)
(Project Originator)
RULES AND REGULATIONS
EXHIBIT 6
COVER SHEET FORMAT FOB ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
(Draft, Final)
Environmental Impact Statement
(Project Location, City,
County, State)
(Potential Agency
Financial Share)
(Other Funds Included)
Alter making an environmental review of
the project, this Agency has decided not to
prepare an environmental impact statement.
An environmental impact appraisal, which
summarizes the review and the reasons why
a statement Is not required, is on file at
the above office and will be available for
public scrutiny upon request.
This Agency will proceed with the award
of a (grant, contract) for this project.
Sincerely,
(Appropriate EPA Official)
EXHIBIT 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL
SUGGESTED FORMAT
A. Identity Project.
Name of Applicant:
Address:
Project Number (if assigned):
B. Summarise Assessment.
1. Brief description of project:
(Signature of appropriate
official)
(Date)
(Describe title of project or plan)
Prepared by
(Responsible Agency Office)
Approved by
(Responsible Agency Official)
(Date)
EXHIBIT 7
SUMMARY SHEET FORMAT FOB ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
(Check one)
( ) Draft.
( ) Final Environmental Statement.
2. Probable impact of the project on the
environment: j.
3. Any probable adverse environmental ef-
fects which cannot be avoided:
~ 4~ Alternatives considered with evaluation
of each:
5. Relationship between local short-term
uses of environment and maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity: —
6. Any irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitment of resources:
7. Public objections to project. If any, and
their resolution:
8. Agencies consulted about the project:
State representative's name:
Local representative's name:
Other:
C. Reasons for concluding there will lie no
significant impacts.
(Discuss topics 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 above,
and how the alternative (topic 4) selected
will avoid any major public objections or
significant impacts, thereby making an im-
pact statement unnecessary.)
1711
Environmental Protection Agency
(Responsible Agency Office)
1, Name of action. (Check one)
Administrative action. ( )
Legislative action. ( )
2. Brief description of action indicating
what States (and counties) are particularly
affected.
3. Summary of environmental impact and
adverse environmental effects.
4. List alternatives considered.
5. a. (For draft statements) List all Fed-
eral, State, and local agencies from which
comments have been requested.
b. (For final statements) List all Federal,
State, and local agencies and other sources
from which written comments have been re-
ceived.
6. Dates draft statement and final state-
ment made available to Council on Environ-
mental Quality and public.
IXHI1I1 I
FLOWCHART FOR OR ft!
PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING IF AN 115 IS REQUIRED ON OR1M PROJECTS
1 GRANTS (.»«.,, „! II1HOUSE PROJECTS 1
(AT RECEIPT OF .APPLICATION) [ COKTBACTSJ (PRIOH T0 PROJECT COMMENCEMENT)]
1
* *
[SOLE SOURCE I COHPETETIVE I
(At RECEIPT OF PROPOSAL) | (PRIOR TO RELEASE OF RFP)|
1 1
ASSESSMENT MUST
BE SUBMITTED
WITH APPLICATION
OR PROPOSAL
1
*
DETERMIHE'IF PROJECT
•ILL AFFECT EHVI»ai-
HENT OUTSIDE. THE FA-
CILITI
ASSESSMENT
NOT REQUIRED
1
CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW (COORDINATE WITH
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR)
TO DETERMINE If SIS IS
REQUIRED
PREPARE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
DECISIOH OFFICIAL
DETERMINES IT PRO-
JECT HLL BE FORDED
J ^
CIRCULATE NOTICE OF"
INTE1IT AND PREPARE
DflAFT EIS.
*
PREPARE FIHAL |
EIS ABB ISSUE j
I
J
SHELVE PROJECT
COMMENCE*
OR AWARD CI
CONTRACT
r^
SHELVE PROJECT
TH PROJECT .
K«Y l~~| ACTIUITV
NO. 11—pt. n-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 11— WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
172
-------
1712
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FXHiitr f
FIOWCHJUT reft
s rot UUIMINING if AH t«s is Rtoumro ON O»WMP MOJKU
•O CZI "cnvnv
[FB Doc.73-820 Filed 1-16-73:8:45 am]
REGISTER, VOl. 38, NO- 11—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1973
173
-------
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1974
WASHINGTON. D.C.
Volume 39 • Number 29
PART III
APPENDIX G
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL
Construction Grants
for Waste Treatment Works
174
-------
5252
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTEK !— ENVIRONMENTAL
PRQTECT-iOM AGENCY
SUBCHAPTE3 H—GRANTS
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Final Construction Grant Regulations.
Title n of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub.
L. 92-500, 33 U.S.C, 1251 et scq.) au-
thorizes the award of construction grants
for waste treatment works. The award
of these grants creates a contractual
obligation of the United States for pay-
ment of the Federal share of the con-
struction costs of such projects.
Interim regulations were published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER for this program.
on February 28, 1973 (38 PR 5329).
Written comments received from inter-
ested parties are on file with the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. The
agency has carefully considered all com-
ments submitted by the public, as well
as comments made by EPA and State
Agency personnel on the basis of their
experience under the interim construc-
tion grant regulations. A number of these
comments have been adopted or sub-
stantially satisfied by editorial changes
in, deletions from, or additions to this
subpart. An effort has been made to con-
form the procedures and requirements of
the new grant system to the construction
grants program established under sec-
tion 0 of the prior Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as well as to ensure that
new statutory requirements will be met.
Major changes in this subpart are the
following:
(1) The three-step grant process has
been clarified to reflect that a basic grant
application Is submitted for the initial
award of grant assistance, and that sub-
sequent related projects will be funded
through amendment of this grant. In
addition, in accordance with section 2 of
Pub. L. 93-243, enacted December 28,
1973, the requirement that a Step 3 proj-
ect had to result in an "operable" treat-
ment works has been deleted. A project
may be awarded for any "segment" of
treatment works construction as that
term is defined in new § 35.905-24, which
provides that a segment may consist of
any portion of the treatment works con-
struction associated with a discrete con-
tract or subcontract to be awarded for
Step 1, 2, or 3 project work.
(2) Section 35.915 has been revised
and expanded to explain more clearly
EPA requirements under applicable stat-
utory provisions for State priority sys-
tems aitd the interrelationship between
this subpart and regulations which have
been issued under section 106 and 303(e)
of the Act. Each State will develop and
submit a single project priority list which
will remain In ellect until a new list is
approved as a part of the annual sec-
tion 106 State program submission;
once priority has been established for a
project, the project will retain this
priority until funded, unless the State
otherwise provides through iti priority
system. Two new provisions have also
been added. Section 35.915 (g) requires
that cacti State reserve not less than 5
percent of focal year 1075 and subse-
quent State allotments oj contract au-
thority in order to adetiualely provide for
cost overruns which are being experi-
enced under the construction r;rant pro-
gram. Section 35.915(1) permits (but
does not require) the State to establish a
separate resei-.'e for grant assistance for
Step 1 and Step 2 projects whose selec-
tion for funding will be determined by
the State agency subsequent to approval
of the project list, since experience has
demonstrated that States require more
flexibility than is permitted by an an-
nual priority determination.
(3) Facilities planning requirements
are set forth in new 5535.917 through
35.917-9. In order to permit a transition
into these new requirements, full com-
pliance \vilh substatutory requirements
will not be required except vith re?pecs
to Step 1 work which is initiated after
April 30, 1974. After October 31, 1974, a
"plan of study" must be approved prior
to the initiation of Step 1 work. These
new procedures are designed to assure
better accomplishment of the objectives
of the new Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act and collateral statutory re-
quirements (such as the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1S63), These
statutory requirements must be ad-
dressed by the applicant during the
facilities planning process.
(4) New procedures have been estab-
lished in revised § 35.S27-5 to assure that
the infiltration/inflow requirements de-
rived from section 201 (g) (3) and (4)
of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments are
met without unnecessary documentation
and expense.
(5) New provisions in {§ 35.925-18 and
35.905-4 delineate the Agency's position
with respect to the initiation of project
construction prior to the award of grant
assistance for Steps 1,2, or 3. Section 206
of the FWPCA Amendments of 1972
clearly precludes the type of reimburse-
ment previously authorized under section
8 of the former FWPCA with respect to
projects (as defined under the program
authorized by the prior statute) on
which construction was initiated after
June 30, 1972. Due to the institution of
the three-step grant process under the
new FWPCA, it has become necessary
to address the Issue of reimbursement
with respect to "initiation of construc-
tion" (as denned in 35.905-4) for Steps
1 and 2. For this reason, and to permit
better program mana gemcnt by EPA and
State agencies, and to permit better ac-
complishment of statutory objectives,
procedures are set forth in I 35.925-18
which will phase out the possibility of a
reimbursement claim. Eligible Step 1 or
Step 2 project work initiated prior to
November 1, 1974, will be fully reim-
bursed in conjunction with the next
award of 'grant assistance, if reimburse-
ment is requested (see |35.945
-------
RULES AN& REGULATIONS
5253
(5 35.800 et sea. of this part) remain In
effect and are applicable to construc-
tion grants awarded prior to January 1,
1973, under the authority of section 8.
This Subpart E establishes policies and
procedures applicable only to construc-
tion grant awards from fiscal year 1973
and later contractual obligation author-
ity allotments under Title n of the
FWPCA Amendments of 1972.
Regulations have been promulgated
separately as Subpart D of this part to
Implement the reimbursement provisions
of section 206 of the ja73 FWPCA
Amendments.
This subpart Is promulgated as a final
regulation and will replace the interim
regulations previously promulgated.
However, because of the numerous
changes and additions which have been
made throughout this subpart, public
comment is again Invited. In particular,
comment is Invited upon the new provi-
sions of the following sections: 35.903,
35.908,35.915,35.917 to 35.917-9.36.930-6,
35.938. 35.939. and 35.960. Interested
parties are encouraged to submit written
comments, views, or data concerning this
subpart to the Director, Grants Admin-
istration Division. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
AH such submissions received on or be-
fore April 15, 1974, wffl be considered
with respect to the need for amendment
of this subpart.
Effective date. This subpart shall be-
come effective February 11,1974. AH EPA
construction grants awarded pursuant to
sections lOIKb) and 201 (g) (1) shall be
subject to this subpart. It Is necessary
that this subpart take effect tmtr^iattay
in order to accomplish the objectives of
the Act and to assure optimum achieve-
ment of the effluent and water quality
objectives established pursuant to the
Act.
Dated: February 4,1974.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
teas
_ te for Construction of Treatment
•Federal Wst*r MMton Control Act
-On*
Amendment* of 1972
Sec.
88.900 Purpose.
36.903 summary of construction grant
program.
85406 Definitions,
36406-1 The Act.
36.805-2 Combined sewer.
86405-8 Complete waste treatment system.
85406-4 Construction.
86.906-6 Excessive Inflltratlon/mflow.
36.906-6 Industrial cost recovery.
36406-7 Industrial cost recovery period.
36405-8 Industrial user.
85.908-8 Infiltration.
SS.90B-10 Infiltration/Inflow.
36.906-11 Inflow.
85.905-13 Interceptor sewer.
86405-13 Interstate agency.
86.606-1* Municipality.
86406-15 Operable treatment worts.
86406-18 Project.
86406-17 Replacement.
86406-18 Sanitary sewer.
85406-19 Sewage collection system.
36406-30 State.
36406-31 State agency.
Sec.
36405-33 Storm sewer.
36.905-23 Treatment weeks.
36406-34 Treatment works segment.
36406-36 Useful life.
35405-20 User charge.
35.9O8 Advanced technology and acceler-
ated construction techniques.
35410 Allocation of funds.
85.91O-1 Allotment.
35.910-3 Reallotment.
35.910-3 Fiscal Tears 1973 and 1974 allot-
ments.
35410-4 Fiscal year 1976 allotments,
35412 Delegation to State Agencies.
35.915 State determination of project
priority list.
35.917 Facility planning (Step 1).
35417-1 Content of facilities plan.
35.917-2 State responsibilities.
35.917-3 Federal assistance.
35.917-4 Planning scope and detail.
36417-6 Public participation.
35417-8 Acceptance by implementing gov-
ernmental units.
36417-7 State review and certification, of
faculties plan.
36417-8 Submission and approval of facu-
lties plan.
35417-9 Revision or amendment of facul-
ties plan.
35420 Grant application.
36.930-1 Eligibility.
36.920-3 Procedure.
36.920-3 Contents of application.
35.925 Limitations on award.
36.926-1 Facilities planning.
' 86.925-2 Basin plan.
36.935-3 Priority determination
35425-4 State allocation.
36425-6 Funding and other capabilities.
36426-6 Permits.
36426-7 Design.
36.926-8 Environmental review.
36.925-4 Civil Bights.
85.935-10 Operation and maintenance pro-
gram.
36426-11 User charges.
' 36.936-13 Industrial cost recovery.
36.995-13 Sewage coHeotlon system.
36426-14 Compliance with Environmental
Laws,
35425-18 Treatment of industrial waste*.
35.926-16 Federal activities.
36426-17 Retained amounts for reconstruc-
tion and expansion.
36.925-18 Limitation upon project costs In-
curred prior to award.
86425-19 Section 208: Agencies and plans.
36427 Sewer system evaluation and re-
hftfoilltatlon.
36427-1 Infiltration/inflow analysis.
36.927-3 Sewer system evaluation survey.
35437-3 Rehabilitation.
36427-4 Sewer use ordinance.
36427-6 Project procedures.
36428 Industrial- cost recovery.
35.938-1 Recovered amounts.
36438-3 Retained amounts.
36430 Award of grant assistance.
38.930-1 Types of projects.
35430-3 Grant amount.
36430-8 Grant term.
3548O-4 Project scope.
86430-6 Federal share.
36.930-8 Limitation on Federal share.
35.936 Grant conditions.
86486-1 Non-Federal construction costs.
36.936-3 Procurement; nonreetrtctlve spec-
ifications.
36436-8 Bonding and insurance.
36436-4 State and local laws.
36486-8 Davis-Bacon and related statute*.
36486-8 Equal employment opportunity.
36435-7 Access.
36.936-8 Supervision.
Sec.
36.936-9 Project completion,
36.936-10 Copies of contract documents.
35435-U Project changes.
36.936-19 Operation and maintenance.
35.935-13 User charges and Industrial cost
recovery.
35435-14 Final Inspection.
36.935-15 Utilization of small and minority
businesses.
35.936-16 Sever use ordinance and evalu-
ation/rehabilitation program.
35485-17 Training faculty.
35.937 Contracts for personal and pro-
fessional services [Reserved],
35.938 Construction contracts of grant-
ees.
35.938-1 Applicability.
35.908-2 Performance by contract.
35.938-3 Type of contract.
35.938-1 Formal advertising.
35.938-8 Negotiation.
35.939 Compliance with procurement re-
quirements.
86.940 Determination of allowable costs.
35.940-1 Allowable project costs.
36.940-2 Unallowable costa.
36.940-3 Costs allowable. If approved.
36.940-4 Indirect costs.
35.94O-5 Disputes concerning allowable
costs.
35.945 Grant payments.
35.950 Suspension or termination of
grants.
35.958 Grant amendments to Increase
grant amounts.
35.960 Disputes.
AOTHOBTTY: Sees. 109(b), 201 through 205,
207, 210 through 212, and 5Ol(a), 602, and
611 of Pub. L. 92-600 (86 Stat. 810; 33 UJS.C.
1251) as amended by Pub. L. 93-243.
§35.900 Purpose.
This subpart supplements the EPA
general grant regulations and procedurea
(Part 30 of this chapter) and establishes
policies and procedures for grants to as-
sist the construction of publicly owned
•waste treatment works In compliance
with the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
§ 35.903 Summary of construction grant
program.
(a) The construction of Federally fi-
nanced waste treatment works Is gener-
ally accomplished in three steps: Step
1 facilities plans and related elements;
Step 2 preparation of construction
drawings and specifications; and Step
3 fabrication and building of a treat-
ment works.
(b) The Regional Administrator may
award grant assistance for a Step 1, Step
2, or Step 3 project, or, under special
conditions, for a project involving a com-
bination of Steps 2 and 3. A "project"
(see 9 35.905-16) may consist of an en-
tire step or any "segment" (see 9 35.905-
24) of construction within a step.
(c) Grants are awarded from State al-
locations (see 9 35.910) pursuant to stat-
ute. No grant assistance may be awarded
unless priority for a project has been de-
termined in accordance with an approved
State priority system pursuant to i 35.-
915. The State Is responsible for deter-
mining the amount g-T"! timing of Federal
assistance to each municipality for which
treatment works funding is needed.
176
-------
5251
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(d) The scope of a project will be Ini-
tially defined by a prospective applicant.
This Initial project scope may be revised
by the State when priority for the project
is established. The final determination of
project scope will be made by the Re-
gional Administrator when grant assist-
ance Is awarded (see § 35.930-4).
(e) An application must first be sub-
mitted to the State agency for each pro-
posed grant. The basic grant application
must meet the requirements for the proj-
ect set forth in § 35.920-3. Submissions
required for grant assistance for subse-
quent related projects shall be provided
in the form of amendments to the basic
application. The State agency will for-
ward to the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator complete project applica-
tions or amendments thereto for which
priority has been determined by the State
agency. The grant will consist of the
grant agreement resulting from the basic
application and grant amendments
awarded for subsequent related projects.
(f) Generally, grant assistance for
projects involving Steps 2 or 3 will not
be awarded unless the Regional Admin-
istrator first determines that the facil-
ities planning requirements of §§ 35.917
to 35.917-9 of this subpart have been met.
After October 31, 1974, written approval
of a "plan of study" (see § 35.920-3(a)
(I» must be obtained prior to initiation
of facilities planning. After June 30. 1975,
facilities planning may not be initiated
prior to approval of a Step 1 grant (see
§5 35.925-18 and 35.905-4L
has occurred
prior to award of grant assistance, costs
incurred prior to the approved date of
initiation of construction will not be paid
and award will not be made except
under the circumstances set forth in
§ 35.925-18.
(h> The Regional Administrator may
not award grant assistance unless the
project application requirements of 5 35.-
920-3 have been met and he has made
the determinations required by 5 35.925
et seq.
A grant or grant amendment
awarded for a project under this subpart
shall constitute a contractual obligation
of the United States to pay the Federal
share of allowable project costs up to the
amount approved in the grant agreement
(including amendments) in accordance
with § 35.930-6 of this subpart, subject
to the grantee's compliance with the con-
ditions of the tyrant 'sc-e § 35.935 et seq.)
and other applicable requirements of this
subpart.
Section 35.945 authorizes prompt
payment for incurreo project costs in ac-
cordance v%-it!i a negotiated payment
schedule. The initial request for payment
may cover unpaid allowable costs of work
completed prior to award except as
otliervvjse provider' in § 35.923-18. All al-
lowable costs incurred prior to initiation
of project construction must be claimed
in the application for grant, assistance
for that project prior to the award of
such assistance or no subsequent claim
for payment may be made for such coste.
The estimated amount, of any grant or
grant amendment, including any prior
coals, must be established in conjunction
with determination of priority for the
project. The Regional Administrator
must determine that the project costs
are reasonable and allowable, in accord-
ance with 5 35.940.
(k) Pursuant to section 204(b) of the
Act, the grantee must comply with ap-
plicable user charge 'and industrial cost
recovery requirements; see §535.925-11,
35.925-12, 35.928, 35.935-13, and Ap-
pendix B of this subpart.
(1) Sewage collection systems for new
communities, new subdivisions, or newly
developed urban areas must be addressed
in the planning of such areas and should
be Included as part of the development
costs of the new construction in these
areas. Such costs will not be allowed
under the construction grant program,
pursuant to section 211 of the Act; see
§ 35.925-13.
(m) The approval of a plan of study
for Step 1, a facilities plan, or award of
grant assistance for Step 1, Step 2, or
Step 3, or any segment thereof, will not
constitute a Federal commitment for ap-
proval of grant assistance for any subse-
quent project.
(n) Where justified, a deviation from
any substatutory requirements of this
subpart may be granted pursuant to
| 30.1001 of this chapter.
(o) It is the policy of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to promote
adequate public participation in the con-
struction grant process. Opportunity for
public participation is required: (1) In
the development of the State water pol-
lution control strategy and State project
priority list, pursuant to §§ 35.556 and
35.915; and (2) in the development of
facilities plans, pursuant to I 35.917-5.
§ 33.905 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, the following
words and terms shall have the meaning
set forth below:
§ 33.903-1 The Act.
The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended
by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-
500) and Pub. L. 93-243.
§35.903—2 Combined sever.
A sewer intended to serve as a sanitary
sewer and a storm sewer, or as an in-
dustrial sewer and a storm sewer.
§ 35.905—3 Complete waste treatment
*.i stem.
A complete waste treatment system
consists of all the connected treatment
works necessary to meet the require-
ments of Title ni of the Act and involved
in: (a) The transport of wastewaters
from individual homes or buildings to a
plant or facility wherein treatment of
the wastewater is accomplished; (b) the
treatment of the waste waters to remove
pollutants; and i.c) the iiltimate disposal,
including recycling or reuse, of the
treated wastcwatcrs and residues result-
ing from the treatment process. One
complete waste treatment system would,
normally, include one treatment plant or
facility, but in instances where two or
moro treatment plants are Intercon-
nected, all ol the interconnected tiem-
inent-works will be considered as one
waste treatment system.
§ 35.905-1 Construction.
Any one or more of the following:
Preliminary planning to determine the
feasibility of treatment works, engineer-
ing, architectural, legal, fiscal, or eco-
nomic investigations or studies, surveys.
designs, plans, working drawings, specifi-
cations, procedures or other necessary
actions, erection, building, acquisition,
alteration, remodeling, improvement, or
extension of treatment works, or the in-
spection or supervision of any of the
foregoing items. The phrase "initiation
of construction," as used in this subpart
means with reference to a project for:
(a) The' preparation of a facilities
plan or completion of other Step 1 ele-
ments:
(1) Prior to November 1, 1974, the ex-
ecution of an agreement for any element
of Step 1 project work (including facili-
ties planning); or, if an agreement
covering Step 1 work has previously been
entered into, the issuance of a notice to
proceed with the Step 1 work; or a work
order for the execution of any element of
Step 1 work;
.(2) After October 31, 1974, the date
of approval of a plan of study (see
f 35.925~18(a> fll);
(b) the preparation of construction
drawings and specifications (Step 2):
(1) Prior to November 1, 1974, the ex-
ecution of an agreement for the prepara-
tion of construction drawings and spec-
ifications; or, if an agreement covering
both Step 1 and Step 2 elements has been
previously entered into, the issuance of
a notice to proceed; or a work order for
the preparation of construction draw-
ings and specifications;
(2) After October 31. 1974, the date
of approval of a facilities plan (see
? 35.925-18(a)(2));
(c) the building and erection of a
treatment works segment (Step 3): the
issuance of a notice to proceed under a
construction contract for any segment
of Step 3 project work, or, .if notice to
proceed is not required, execution of the
construction contract.
§ 35.905—5 E.xcessive iiifiluvition/iiifliMf.
The quantities of infiltration/inflow
which can be economically eliminated
from a sewer system by rehabilitation, as
determined by a cost-effectiveness anal-
ysis that compares the casts for correct-
ing the infiltration/inflow conditions
with the total costs for transportation
and treatment of the infiltration/inflow,
subject to the provisions in § 35.927.
§ 35.905—6 Industrial eo*t recovery.
Recovery by the grantee from the in-
dustrial users of a treatment works o'
the grant amount allowable (a the treat-
ment of wastes from sueli users pursuant
to section 204(b) of the Act and this
subpart.
T77
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5255
§ 35.905-7 Industrial Cost Recovery
Period.
That period during which the grant
amount allocable to the treatment of
wastes from industrial users Is recovered
from the Industrial users of such works,
§ 33.905-8 Industrial user.
Any nongovernmental user of publicly
owned treatment works identified in the
Standard Industrial Classification Man-
ual, 1972, Office of Management and
Budget, as amended and supplemented,
under the following divisions:
(a) Division, A. Agriculture, Forestry,
and Fishing.
(b) Division B. Mining,
Division D. Manufacturing.
(d) Division E. Transportation, Com-
munications, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary
Services.
(e) Division I. Services. A user In the
Divisions listed may be excluded if it is
determined that it will Introduce pri-
marily segregated domestic wastes or
wastes from sanitary conveniences.
§ 35.905-9 Infiltration.
The water entering a sewer system,
Including sewer service connections,
from the ground, through such means as,
but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe
joints, connections, or manhole walls. In-
filtration does not Include, and Is dis-
tinguished from, Inflow.
§ 35.905-10 Infiltration/inflow.
The total quantity of water from both
Infiltration and inflow without distin-
guishing the source.
§ 35.905-11 Inflow.
The water discharged into a sewer
system, including service connections
from such sources as, but not limited to,
roof leaders, cellar, yard, and area
drains, foundation drains, cooling water
discharges, drains from springs and
swampy areas, manhole covers, cross
connections, from storm sewers and com-
bined sewers, catch basins, storm waters,
surface run-off, street wash waters, or
drainage. Inflow does not include, and
Is distinguished from, infiltration.
§ 35.905-12 Interceptor sewer.
A sewer whose primary purpose is to
transport wastewaters from collector
sewers to a treatment facility.
§ 35.905-13 Interstate agency.
An agency of two or more States es-
tablished by or pursuant to an agreement
or compact approved by the Congress, or
any other agency of two or more States,
having substantial powers or duties per-
taining to the control of water pollution.
§ 35.905-14 Municipality.
A city, town, borough, county, parish,
district, association, or other public body
(including an intermuniclpal agency of
two or more of the foregoing entities)
created by or pursuant to State law, or
an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian
tribal organization, having jurisdiction
over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes,
or other wastes, or a designated and ap-
proved management agency under sec-
tion 208 of the Act. This definition ex-
cludes a special district, such as a school
district, which does not have as one of
its principal responsibilities the treat-
ment, transport, or disposal of liquid
wastes.
§ 35.905-15 Operable treatment works.
An operable treatment works is a treat-
ment works that:
(a) Upon completion of construction
will treat wastewater, transport waste-
water to or from treatment, or transport
and dispose of wastewater in a manner
which will significantly improve an ob-
jectionable water quality related situa-
tion or health hazard in existence prior
to construction of the treatment works,
and
Cb) Is a component part of a com-
plete waste treatment system which,
upon completion of construction for the
complete waste treatment system (or
completion of construction of other
treatment works in the system in ac-
cordance with a schedule approved by
the Regional Administrator) will com-
ply with all applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements.
§ 35.905-16 Project.
The scope of work for which Federal
assistance is awarded by a grant or
grant amendment pursuant to this sub-
part. For the purposes of this subpart,
the scope of work is defined as Step 1,
Step 2, or Step 3 of treatment works
construction or segments thereof (see
§ 35.905-24 and § 35.930-4).
§ 35.905-17 Replacement.
Expenditures for obtaining and in-
stalling equipment, accessories, or ap-
purtenances which are necessary during
ttie service life of the treatment works
to maintain the capacity and perform-
ance for which such works were designed
and constructed. The term "operation
and maintenance" includes replacement,
§ 35.905-18 Sanitary sewer.
A sewer intended to carry only sani-
tary or sanitary and Industrial waste
waters from residences, commercial
buildings, industrial plants, and institu-
tions.
§ 35.905-19 Sewage collection system.
For the purpose of 8 35.925-13 of this
subpart, each, and all, of the common
lateral sewers, within a publicly-owned
treatment system, which are primarily
installed to receive wastewaters directly
from facilities which convey wastewater
from individual structures or from priv-
ate property, and which include service
connection "Y" fittings designed for con-
nection with those faculties. The facilities
which convey wastewater from individual
structures or from private property to
the public lateral sewer, or its equivalent,
are specifically excluded from the defini-
tion, with the exception of pumping units,
and pressurized lines, for Individual
structures or groups of structures when
such units are cost effective and are
owned and maintained by the grantee.
§ 35.905-20 State.
A State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Vir-
gin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
§ 35.905-21 State agency.
The State water pollution control
agency designated by the Governor hav-
ing responsibility for enforcing State
laws relating to the abatement of pollu-
tion.
§ 35.905-22 Storm sewer.
A sewer intended to carry only storm
waters, surface run-off, street wash
waters, and drainage.
§ 35.905-23 Treatment works.
Any devices and systems used in the
storage, treatment, recycling, and recla-
mation of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature to implement
section 201 of the act, or necessary to re-
cycle or reuse water at the most eco-
nomical cost over the useful life of the
works, including intercepting sewers, out-
fall sewers, sewage collection systems,
pumping, power, and other equipment
and their appurtenances; extensions, im-
provement, remodeling, additions, and
alterations thereof; elements essential to
provide a reliable recycled supply such as
standby treatment units and clear well
facilities; and any works. Including site
acquisition of the land that will be an
Integral part of the treatment process or
Is used for ultimate disposal or residues
resulting from such treatment: or any
other method or system for preventing,
abating, reducing, storing, treating, sepa-
rating, or disposing of municipal waste,
Including storm water run-off, or indus-
trial waste, including waste In combined
storm water and sanitary sewer systems.
§ 35.905-24 Treatment Works Segment.
A treatment works segment may be
any portion of an operable treatment
works described to an approved facilities
plan, pursuant to § 35.917, and which can
be identified as a discrete contract or
subcontract for Step 1, 2, or 3 work. Com-
pletion of construction of a treatment
works segment may, but need not, result
hi an operable treatment works.
§35.905-25 Useful life.
Estimated period during which a treat-
ment works will be operated.
178
-------
5256
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§35.905-26 UMT charge.
A charge levied on users of a. treatment
works for the cost of operation and main-
tenance ot such worKs, pursuant to Sec-
tion 204 (b) of the Act and tliis subpart.
§ 3S.W>8 Advanced lochnolojry «'«e rounded to the nearest thousand
dollars except for Fiscal Year 1975 -which
will be rounded to the nearest fifty dol-
lars.
§ 35,910-2 RejOlotniMit.
(a) Sums allotted to a State under
$ 35.910-1 shall be available for obliga-
tion on and after the date of such allot-
ment and shall continue to be available
to such State lor a period of one year
after the close of the fiscal year for which
such sums are authorized. Funds remain-
ing unobligated at the end ol the allot-
ment period will be immediately reallot-
ted by the Administrator, on ills basis
of the most recent allotment ratio to
those States which have used their full
allotment.
35 Puerto
Missouri— 1.6558 Rico .8845
Montana . 1$62 Virgin
Nebr&sKa '__ . 3708 Islands „ . 0893
Nevada . 2877 American
NewHamp- Samoa .0048
snlre .8309 Trust Ter-
New Jersey. 7.7040 rttoryof
New Mex- Pacific
ico . .2108 Islands .- .0378
100.0000
(c) Based upon the percentages, the
eums allotted to the States as of July 1,
1973, for Fiscal Years 1973 and 1574 are
as follows:
8t*U TTswil y«»r yj,-?s! year
1973 I'J7-1
Alabama .. ..... ff 2J4 000 $10 K3'> (Trt
ArX"i!5.*ii ......... 7 072 000 10 f'"* f'X*
Cwmwtleut :.. SJ.G'.B.OO) S0.43fi.Cl OSO t'f.31 C-O
Uliroi^ . . 124 97& 030 1S7 -f7 '-'•")
Indlaua 67 3?-i ooo 'Tr>j'r.^;'t:»o
Iowa 23, 1U, 000 ' 3-;, 071 <*f>
KemucVy.. .- .. ... 13 19& 000 1^ 7'j7 Co-1
Loulsioua. . ....... 18 85^ QUO 2S 2S4 t'O
MsiB«.. .. ,. 1^,360 0(x> "& Wo'tvrt
M.tEiKliasetts "S, 1*3,000 112,'S^ >1
Kevftda _ 5 754 000 8 £31 !X>3
New 13 'tfiipiblra,., „,..„. 10,C1S,000 24 927 OX)
New Jer^oy 154,090000 731 \y) (vv>
Ke^T Mesico-w» , 4,2lc',0&0 6,33-1,0,0
New York 221 LS6 000 331 734 OO
Norlh Car^liDa. IS 45S 000 *^r &o7 r«'/l
Norti Dakota. $34 000 1 401 ^id
Ohio 115 471 OCO J73 '11 («>-\
Oklahoma, . . 9 216 000 13 &"-t ''-"M
Oregon . . IS SSS, (OH 2i 132 t-fj
Pennsylvania 108 428 000 162 M2 C'O
Rhode Island 9 778 COO H 6'>V 000
South Cftrvljnft 12 910 000 19 t^o* OCO
South Dakota 1,R28, 0.'O 2i Vi-V <•""-'
TCTfts . . 56 %88 000 S3 3
Virgin Idands 1,7*6.000 2679 (>'0
American Ffimoa 96,000 144,003
Trust Territory oJ PBclflc
Inlands ' . 756,000 1 134 &CO
TotBL: Z, 000, 000, 000 S, 000, 000 09 3
§ 35.910-4 Fiscal Year 1975 Allotments.
(a) For the fiscal Year ending
Jttne 30, 1975, a sum of $1 billion has
been allotted based 50 percent on the
ratios of Table I and 50 percent of Table
H of House Public Works Committee
Print No. 93-28, pursuant to Pub. L.
93-243.
(b) The percentages used in comput-
ing the State allotments set forth In par-
agraph (c) of this section, for Fiscal
Year 1975 are as follows:
• -jPer- Per-
State centage State cerlaye
Alabama — 0.6016 Delaware — 0.5518
Arizona 0. 4066 Colunv-
Arkftnsas . 0.6069 blft 0.9724
California-- 11.6340 Florida 4.1838
Colorado — 0. 7867 Georgia — 1. 0363
Connect- Hawaii 1. 0463
Icut 1.7687 Idaho 0.2009
179
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5257
State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa ..
Kansas
Kentucky _
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachu-
setts
Michigan ._
Minnesota .
Mississippi .
Missouri
Montana —
Nebraska ..
Nevada
New Hamp-
shire
Hew Jersey -
New
Mexico —
New York „
North Caro-
lina
North
Dakota ..
Onto
Oklahoma -
Oregon
Per- Per-
centage State centage
6.4173 Pennsyl-
1.6196 vania 5.6653
1.0012 Rhode
1.0322 Island... 0.5308
1.68T9 South
0.7245 Carolina- 1.4223
0.6870 South
1.3767 Dakota _. 0.0907
Tennessee - 1.2303
3.2845 Texas - 1.6534
4.7978 Utah 0.4217
1.0341 Vermont „ 0.3001
0.5355 Virginia 2.5096
1.8960 Washing-
0.1421 ton 1.6463
0.5314 West
0.4755 Virginia - 0.9598
Wisconsin _ 1.3317
0.8920 Wyoming _. 0.0768
S.4789 Guam 0.0478
Puerto
0.1869 Rico 1.0385
12.4793 Virgin
Islands — 0.0796
1.7029 American
Samoa 0.0147
Trust Terri-
tory ol the
Pacific
Islands _-
West Virginia -- $37,735,700
Wisconsin 62,360,400
Wyoming 4,049,450
Guam?- 2,172,000
Puerto Rico 40,892,900
Virgin Islands 3.13°. O00
American Samoa 576,700
Trust Territory of Pacific
Islands 624,300
Allotment adjustment has been made
for those States that would receive an al-
lotment that would be less than their
Fiscal Year 1972 allotment. The allot-
ment of those States which fall below
their Fiscal Year 1972 allotment will be
restored to their Fiscal Year 1972 allot-
ment using funds from the total allot-
ment. Remaining funds will be allocated
to States (excluding the States with
allotment adjustment) based on ad-
justed percentages. Minimum allotment
amounts are determined on the basis of
Table TTT of House Public Works Com-
mittee Print 93-28.
0.0818
4.9184
1.1953
0.8682
0. 0133
(c) Based upon the percentages set
forth in paragraph (b) of this section
and allotment adjustments the sums
allotted to the States as of January 1,
1974, are as follows:
§ 35.912 Delegation to State agencies.
It is the policy of the Environmental
Protection Agency to utilize staff capa-
bilities of State agencies to the maxi-
mum extent practicable through opti-
mum utilization of-available State and
Federal resources and to eliminate un-
necessary dupllcatiye reviews of docu-
ments that are required as a part of the
construction grant process. Accordingly,
Alabama $33,785,150 the Regional Administrator may enter
Alaska 15,059,100 into a written agreement, where appro-
Arizona Priate, with a State agency within his
R^«n for certification by the State
?&™? <* «»te^_^,'2±'
Connecticut. 69,542,900 istrative adequacy of specified docu-
Deiaware 21,815,300 ments' Provided, That an applicant or
District or Columbia 38,238,800 grantee may request review by the Re-
Fiorida 164,490,400 gional Administrator of an adverse rec-
Ooorgia 76,153,000 ommendation by a State agency.
nAWftli _______________________ 41,140, 000
Idaho 7,898,400 §35.915 State determination of project
Illinois 252,811.700 priority list.
» mm Construction grants will be awarded
40'192'wo from allotments available pursuant to
Kentucky 65,183.600 § 35.910 in accordance with the approved
Louisiana 35,551,850 State project priority list which is de-
Maine 26,227,000 rived from the approved State priority
Maryland 64,128,100 system
Massachusetts ^'SS'SS <*> state Prioritv system. The State
Mlcwgan ^w'm Priority system must ta deslgned *°
jnnnesota 64,247,300 ^^ optimum water quality improve-
Missouri __"__! "_" I 74,546!400 ment consistent with the goals and re-
Montana 7,534,600 quirements of the Act. It shall be sub-
Nebraska 20,894,000 mitted and revised in accordance with
Nevada 18,693,600 Subpart B of this part.
New Hampshire 35.072,950 (b) stafe municipal discharge inven-
3?fl m m tor*- Pursuant to 8130.43 of this Chapter,
4$ w ££ the State agency shall prepare a munici-
TO 494P 200 Pal discharge inventory which sets forth
North Dakota 6,878, loo for the entire State a ranking of all sig-
Ohto 193.878,700 nificant municipal discharges (including,
Oklahoma 48.997,400 for example, eligible municipal septic
Oregon 84,136,700 systems) Such list must be submitted as
Pennsylvania 322,744, loo part of fog annual State program for the
•?«£? «w«w^ «* the Regional Administrator
7 m MO ««>«• § 35.557. This State municipal dis-
Tenneesee _- 4s| 37i! 800 charge inventory shall be updated an-
Texas 106,900,'250 nually and submitted with the State pro-
Vetmont ~™ ll' 800 800 8ram P™*-*1* to j 35.555 Of this part.
Virginia _HH~I_I IIIIIII 9s! 67s! 400 Project priority list. The State
Washington 64,730,500 agency shall prepare a listing of the proj-
ects for which Federal assistance may be
requested. This listing should include a
sufficient number of projects to permit
funding to proceed in an orderly fashion
through the period between the next al-
lotment of construction grant funds to
the next approval of a revised project
priority list. The Regional Administrator
shall consider for approval that portion
of the project priority list from which
grant awards may be made from cur-
rently available allotments, pursuant to
the approval procedures of 8 35.555.
(1) In determining which projects to
fund the State shall consider the severity
of pollution problems, the population af-
fected, the need for preservation of high
quality waters, and national priorities as
well as total funds available, project and
treatment works sequence and additional
factors identified by the State in its pri-
ority system. The list of projects to be
funded should be developed in conjunc-
tion with the municipal discharge inven-
tory. It should be consistent with the
municipal discharge inventory but need
not rigidly follow the. ranking of dis-
charges in the inventory. The net result
should be a concentration of projects to
be funded in high priority areas. The
Regional Administrator may require the
State agency to explain the basis for pri-
ority determination for specific projects
located in low priority areas (e.g., court
orders, critical dischargers on lower pri-
ority segments, etc.).
(2) The project priority list shall set
forth, as 8 minimum, the following in-
formation for each project:
(i) Name of municipality;
(ii) State assigned EPA project num-
ber;
(iii) Brief description of type of proj-
ect and anticipated scope of project
(Step 1, 2, or 3 or combination thereof);
(iv) Estimated total project cost; and
(v) Estimated Federal assistance.
(3) A project which is included within
the approved portion of the list shall re-
tain its priority until a grant is awarded,
unless the State otherwise provides
through its priority system. Accordingly,
in developing a revised list, the State
must generally include thereon all proj-
ects from the approved portion of the
prior list or amendments thereto for
which grant assistance has not been
awarded at the time the revision is pre-
pared. The priority for all other projects
will be determined in accordance with
the approved State priority system.
(4) A project wfll be removed from
the project priority list if (i) the project
has been fully funded, (ii) a final and
conclusive determination of project in-
eligibility has been made by the Regional
Administrator, or (ill) the project has
been removed by the State through
amendment or revision of the list.
(5) In order to provide a list of proj-
ects which can be funded from available
allotments in the period after January 1,
1974, until the approval of the next list,
a State may add projects to the approved
fiscal year 1974 list. Projecte for which
fiscal year 1975 contract authority wfll
180
-------
5258
RUIES AND REGULATIONS
be utilized must be Identified since proj-
ects mitinlly landed with fiscal year 1975
funds will be subject to best practicable
waste treatment technology require-
ments (see 5 35.930-4).
(d) Subm-issiaii, amendment and ap-
proval of project priority list. The proj-
ect list shall be submitted and approved
annually as part of the State Program
and may be amended pursuant to S 35.555
and S 35.557.
(e) Application of additional funds. If
the State has submitted a project prior-
ity list containing more projects than
could be funded under the original allot-
ment, upon allocation of additional
funds, the Regional Administrator's ap-
proval of the project priority list will be
extended to the required number of proj-
ects. II there Is an insufficient number of
projects on the list, projects may be
added to the list, pursuant to 5§ 35.555
and 35.557 to account for additional
funds which are available.
(f) Public participation. The Regional
Administrator may not approve a proj-
ect priority list- or any significant amend-
ment thereto unless he determines that
a public hearing- pursuant to 5 35.556 of
this Part has been held on such list prior
to approval. This public hearing may be
conducted In conjunction with a regular
public meeting of the State agency, pro-
vided that adequate and timely State-
wide notice of the meeting, including
publication of the proposed project
priority list Is given, and attendees at
the meeting are afforded adequate op-
portunity to express their views concern-
ing tae list. A public hearing Is not re-
quired with respect to any amendment
of the list (Including deletion of a proj-
ect) which the State agency and the
Regional Administrator agree Is not
significant.
(g) Reserve for grant increases. In
developing the project priority list the
State must make provision for grant in-
creases for projects awarded grant as-
sistance under this subpart. A reason-.
able portion, not less than five percent,
jot each allotment for fiscal year 1975 and
later years made pursuant to S 35.910
shall be reserved for grant amendments
to Increase grant amounts pursuant to
5135.935-11 and 35.955. A statement
specifying the amount to be reserved for
grant amendments shall be submitted by
the State with the project priority list.
The reserve period must be for not more
than eighteen months after the date
of such allotment. If any of the reserved
amount remain';, this amount may be
utilized for the funding of additional
projects, in accordance with the pro-
cedures set forth In paragraph (e) of
this section.
(h) Grant increases. The Regional
Administrator may approve a grant in-
crease, upon application by the grantee,
and upon written confirmation by the
State for each application, that the grant
increase is justified. The grant increases
will be made from the amount reserved,
by the State, for that purpose, from cur-
rently available allotments pursuant to
paragraph (g) of this section.
(1) Reserve for Step 1 and Step 2
Projects, m developing the project pri-
ority list, the State may (but need not)
make provision for an additional reserve
for grant assistance for Step 1 and Step 2
projects whose selection for funding will
be determined by the State agency sub-
sequent to approval of the project list. A
reasonable portion, but not more than
ten percent, of each allotment for fiscal
year 1975 and later years made pursuant
to $ 35.910 may be reserved for this
purpose. A statement specifying the
amount to be reserved for such grant
assistance shall be submitted by the State
with the project priority list. The reserve
period may be for not more than eighteen
months after the date of such allotment.
If any of the reserved amount remains,
this amount may be utilized for the
funding of additional projects, In ac-
cordance with the procedures set forth
In paragraph (e) of this section. The
funding of Step 1 and Step 2 projects
from this reserve should be consistent
with the approved State strategy and
should be developed in conjunction with,
but need not rigidly follow, the rank-
Ing In the municipal discharge Inven-
tory.
§35.917 Facilities Planning (Step 1).
(a) These regulations set forth the fa-
cilities planning required as an element
of the construction of publicly owned
wastewater treatment works and supple-
ment other provisions of this subpart.
(b) Facilities planning consists of
those necessary plans and stadias which
are directly related to the construction
of treatment works, in compliance with
section 301 and 302 of the Act. Facilities
planning will demonstrate the need for
the proposed facilities and, by a syste-
matic evaluation of feasible alternatives,
will also demonstrate that the proposed
measures represent the most cost-effec-
tive means of meeting established effluent
and water quality goals, recognizing en-
vironmental and social considerations.
(c) Facilities planning, determined by
the Regional Administrator to have been
Initiated prior to May 1, 1974, must be
in accordance with applicable statutory
requirements (see §} 35.925-7 and 35.-
925-8), and such other requirements of
this subpart as may be determined to be
appropriate by the Regional Adminis-
trator.
(d) Pull compliance with the facilities
planning provisions of this subpart will
be required prior to award of grant as-
sistance for Step 2 or Step 3 where the
Regional Administrator determines such
planning was Initiated (as determined
pursuant to 5535.905-4 and 35.925-18)
alter April 30,1974.
Grant assistance for Step 2 or 3 may be
awarded prior to approval of a facilities
plan for the entire geographic area to be
served by the complete waste treatment
system of which the proposed treatment
works will be an integral part if the
Regional Administrator determines that
applicable statutory requirements have
been met (see J 35.925-7 and 35.925-8);
that the facilities planning relevant to
the proposed Step 2 or 3 project lias been
substantially completed; and thnt the
Step 2 or 3 project for which grant as-
sistance Is made win not be signuicc,ntly
affected by the completion of the facil-
ities plan and will be a component part
of ttie complete system: Provided, That
the applicant agrees to complete tho
facilities plan on a schedule the State
accepts (subject to approval by the
Regional Administrator), which sched-
ule shall be Inserted as a special condi-
tion In the grant agreement
(e) After October 31, 1974, written p.p-
proval of a plan of study (see § 35.920-2
(a)(l) must be obtained prior to initia-
tion of facilities planning. After June 30,
1975, facilities planning may not be
Initiated prior bo approval of a Step 1
grant or approval of a plan of study ac-
companied by reservation of funds for a
Step 1 grant (see- f 135.925-18 and
35.905-4).
(f) Facilities planning guidellnas pub-
lished by the Administrator we for ad-
visory information only.
(g) If the Information required to bs>
furnished as part of a facilities plan has
been developed separately. It should be
furnished and incorporated by reference
In the facilities plan. Planning previously
or collaterally accomplished under local.
State or Federal programs will be utilized
(not duplicated).
§ 35.917-1 Content of Facilities Plan.
Facilities planning which t, fciU-iai<-.i
after April 30. 1974, must encompass tho
following to the extent deemed appro-
priate by the Regional Administrator:
(a) A description of the tnsui-i.ent
works for which construction firawinrrs
and specifications are to be prepared,
This description shell Include prsttmi-
nary engineering data,, cost estimates for
design and construction of the trcatraciit
works, and a schedule for completion of
design and construction. The preliminary
engineering data may include, to the
extent appropriate, such Information as
a schematic flow diagram, vj\Jt proces^s,
design data regarding detention times,
flow rates, sizing of units, etc.
(b) A description of the selected com-
plete waste treatment system(s) of which
ttie proposed treatment works is a part.
The description shall cover all elements
of the system, from the service area End
collection sewers, through treatment, to
the ultimate discharge of treated waste-
waters and disposal of sludge.
(c) Infiltration/inflow documentation
In accordance with § 35.927.
(d) A cost-elfectiveness analysis of
alternatives for the treatment works and
for the waste treatment system(s) of
which the treatment works is a part.
The selection of the system (s) and the
choice of the treatment works on which
construction drawings and specifications
arc to be based shall reflect the cost-
effectiveness analysis. This analysis shall
Include:
0.) The relationship of the sl^e p.?xl
capacity of alternative works to Iho nrc-ls
to be served, Including reserve opacity;
(2) An evaluation of altemauvc How
and waste reduction measures;
181
-------
(3) An evaluation of Improved effluent
quality attainable by upgrading the op-
eration and maintenance and efficiency
of existing facilities as an alternative or
supplement to construction of new
facilities;
(4) An evaluation of the capability of
each alternative to meet applicable ef-
fluent limitations. The treatment works
design must be based upon not less than
secondary treatment as defined by the
Administrator pursuant to sections 301
(a) (1) (B) and 304(d) (1) of the Act; -
(5) An Identification of, and provision
for, applying the best practicable waste
treatment technology (BFWTT) as de-
fined by the Administrator, based upon
an evaluation of technologies Included
under each of the following waste treat-
ment management techniques:
(i) Biological or physical-chemical
treatment and discharge to receiving
waters;
(11) Treatment and reuse; and
(ill) Land application techniques.
All Step 2, Step 3 or combination Step
2-3 projects for publicly-owned treat-
ment works construction from funds au-
thorized for any fiscal year beginning
after June 30, 1974, shall be based upon
application of BWPTT, as a minimum.
Where application of BPWTT would not
meet water quality standards, the facil-
ities plan shall provide for attaining such
standards. Such provision shall consider
the alternative of treating combined
sewer overflows.
(6) An evaluation of the alternative
means by which ultimate disposal can be
effected for treated wastewater and
for sludge materials resulting from the
treatment process, and a determination
of the means chosen.
(7) An adequate assessment of the ex-
pected environmental Impact of alter-
natives Including sites pursuant to Part
6 of this Chapter. This assessment shall
be revised as necessary to include Infor-
mation developed during subsequent
project steps.
(e) An Identification of effluent dis-
charge limitations, or where a permit
has been Issued, a copy of the permit for
the proposed treatment works as required
by the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System.
(f) Required comments or approvals
of relevant State, Interstate, regional,
and local agencies.
(g) A brief summary of any public
meeting or hearing held during the plan-
ning process including a summary of the
views expressed.
(b> A brief statement demonstrating
that the authorities which will be imple-
menting the plan have the necessary le-
gal, financial, institutional, and man-
agerial resources available to Insure the
construction, operation, and mainte-
nance of the.proposed treatment works.
(i) A statement specifying that the
requirements of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and of Part 7 of this
chapter have been satisfied.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
§ 35.917-2 Stale Responsibilities.
(a) Facilities planning areas. Facili-
ties planning should focus upon the geo-
graphic area to be served by the waste
treatment system(s) of which the pro-
posed treatment works will be an integral
part. The facilities plan should include
that area deemed necessary to prepare
an environmental assessment and to as-
sure that the most cost-effective means
of achieving the established water quality
goals can be planned for and imple-
mented. To assure that facilities plan-
ning initiated after April 30, 1974, sub-
sequent to award of a Step 1 grant there-
for, and all faculties planning initiated
after October 31, 1974, will Include the
appropriate geographic areas, the State
shall:
(1) Delineate, as a preliminary basis
for planning, the boundaries of the plan-
ning areas. In the determination of each
area, appropriate attention should be
given to Including the entire area where
cost savings, other management advan-
tages, or environmental gains may result
from interconnection of individual waste
treatment systems or collective manage-
ment of such systems.
(2) Include maps, which shall be up-
dated annually, showing the Identified
areas and boundary determinations as
part of the State submission under sec-
tion 106 of the Act.
(3) Consult with local officials in mak-
ing the area and boundary determina-
tions.
(b) Facilities planning priorities. The
State shall establish funding priorities
for facilities planning in accordance
with §§ 35.915 and 35.554-3(a) (1).
§ 3 5.917-3 Federal assistance.
(a) General. Facilities planning ini-
tiated after April 30, 1974, subsequent
to award of a Step 1 grant therefor, and
all facilities planning Initiated after
October 31, 1974, must be developed
pursuant to a plan of study (see i 35.-
920-3 (a) (1) approved In accordance
with the requirements of this subpart
prior to initiation of the facilities plan-
ning. A preapplication conference may
be held in accordance with § 35.920-2.
(1) An applicant may apply for a
grant for a Step 1 project for the prepa-
ration of a facilities plan, or any com-
ponent part, and for other Step 1 ele-
ments required to submit a complete
application for a Step 2 project (see
§ 35.920-3(b)). Alternatively, to the ex-
tent permitted by f 35.925-18, a grantee
may be reimbursed for facilities plan-
ning costs and other Step 1 elements for
which reasonable costs have been in-
curred in accordance with this subpart,
in conjunction with the award of a grant
for the subsequent Step 2, Step 2-3, or
Step 3 projects.
(2) State priority determination in
accordance with the approved State
priority system pursuant to § 35.915 Is
required for Step 1 projects, just as In'
the case of Step 2 or Step 3 projects.
(b) Eligibility. Only an applicant
which Is eligible to receive grant asslst-
5259
ance for subsequent phases of construc-
tion (Steps 2 and 3) and which has the
legal authority to subsequently construct
and manage the facility may apply for
grant assistance for Step 1. If the area
to be covered by the facilities plan in-
cludes more than one political jurisdic-
tion, a grant may be awarded for a Step
1 project, as appropriate, <1) to the
joint authority representing such Juris-
tlons, if eligible; (2) to one qualified
(lead agency) applicant; or (3) to two
or more eligible jurisdictions.
(c) Payment. Where a grant has
been awarded for the preparation of a
facilities plan or other Step 1 elements,
the payment schedule in the grant
agreement will provide for payment
upon completion of the Step 1 work or
upon completion of specified tasks
within the scope of the project.
-------
5200
RUIES AND BEQ
facilities plan may satisfy the grantee
hearing' requirement of Part 6 of this
chr.pter. The Rwiional Administrator
may require the planning entity to hold
additional public hearings, if r.etded, to
more fully discuss the plan and alterna-
tives or to afford concerned interests
adequate opportunity to express their
views.
irit' agency has been
afforded the opportunity to comment
upon the plan: smd (a- the plan con-
forms \viih any waste treatment man-
agreement plan approved pursuant to
section 208 (b) of the Act.
§ 35.917-8 i>ujn>ii.«ion ami approval of
facilities pl;m.
The completed facilities plan must be
submitted by'the State agency and ap-
proved )/.v ilie Ke?:ional Administrator.
\Vhrr*- dftiit;?-r-.tk-s >n a facil>tits pia'n are
discovered, the Kev.onal Administintor
shall p-.-mr.pf-b notify the Stuie and the
grantee or applicant in vritinp of the
nature of sucti deficiencies and of the
recommended course of action to correct
such deficiencies. Approval of n plan of
study or a facilHle:; p'.an will not con-
sUtu'tc i'.n obligation of the United States
for any Step 2, Step 3, or combination
Steps 2 and 3 project.
§ 33,917-9 Revision or amendment of
facilities plan.
A facilities plan may include more
than one Step 3 project and provide the
basis for several subsequent Step 2, Step
2-3, or Step 3 projects, A facilities plan
which has served as the basis for the
a-wnrd of a grant for -. Step 2, Step 2-3, or
Step 3 project shall be reviewed prior to
the award of any grant for a subsequent
project involving Step 2 or Step 3 to de-
termine if substantial changes have oc-
cur) ecj. If in the judgment of the Re-
grionaJ Administrator substantial changes
have, occurred \rliich warrant revision or
amendment, the plan shall be revised or
amended and submitted for review in the
same manner specified in this subpart.
§ 35.920 Grant apii
Grant, applications mil be submitted
and eva.lua.tad in accordance with Part
30, Subpart B of this chapter,
§ 35.020-1 Eligibility.
Municipalities, Intel-municipal agen-
cies, States, or interstate agencies may
apply for grant assistance.
§ 35.920-2 Procedure.
Preappli cation assistance, including,
where appropriate, a preapplicatlon con-
ference, should be requested from the
State agency or the appropriate EPA
Regional Office for each project for
which State priority lias been deter-
mined. An application must be submitted
to the State agency for each proposc-d
treatment works. The basic application
shall meet the requirements lor the proj-
ect set forth in §35.920-3. Submissions
required for subsequent related projects
shall be provided in the form of amend-
ments to the basic application. Each such
submission shall be submitted through
the State agency, must be complete (see
§ 35.920-3) , and must relate to a project
for which priority has been determined
In accordance with § 35.915. If any in-
formation required pursuant to § 35.-
920-3 has been furnished with an earlier
application, the applicant need only in-
corporate by reference and, ii nfcc&ssary
update or revise such information utiliz-
ing tl»e previously approved application.
§ 33.920-3 Contents of application.
(a) Step 1 . Facilities plan and related
elements required to apply for Step 2
grant assistance. An application for a
grant for Step 1 shall include:
(li A plan of study presenting (i) the
proposed planning area; (ii) an identi-
fication of the entity or entities that will
be cr-uilucUrg the planning-; (iii> the
nature and scope of the proposed Step 1
preset, including a schMule for the
coiupleUon ofsp-.vi.ac tasks; and Civ) an
itc:vii?.ed description of the estimated
costs for the project;
(2) Proposed subsgreements, or an ex-
planation of the Intended method of
awarding Mibngreenserits for perform-
ance of any substantial portion Of the
project work;
(3) Required comments or approvals of
relevant State, local, and Federal agen-
cies (including "clearinghouse" require-
ments of OMB Circular A-95, promul-
gated at 38 FR 32874 on November 28,
1913). ;
A statement regarding availability
of the proposed site, if relevant;
(5) Satisfactory evidence of a pro-
posed or existing program for compliance
with the Relocation and Land Acquisi-
tion Policies Act of 1970 in accordance
with I 30.403 (d) and Part 4 of this chap-
ter, if applicable;
(6) Satisfactory evidence of compli-
ance vrith other applicable Federal statu-
tory and regulatory requirements (see
Part 30, Subpart C of this chapter^;
(7) Proposed subagre.em.ents, or an ex-
planation of the intended method of
awarding subsgreements for perform-
ance of any substantial portion ot the
project work.
(8) Required comments or approvals
of relevant State, local, and Federal
agencies (including "clearinghouse" re-
quirements of OMB Circular A-95) if a
grant application has not been previously
submitted.
(c> Step 3. Building and erection of a
treatment works. Prior to the award of a
grant or grant amendment for a Step 3
project, each of the items specified in
paragraph (b) of this section, and in ad-
dition U) two sets of construction draw-
ings and specifications, suitable for bid-
ding purposes, and (2) a schedule for or
evidence of compliance with §§ 35.925-10
and 35.935-12 concerning an operation
and maintenance program, must have
been furnished.
(d) Step 2/3. Design/Construct Proj-
ect. Prior to the award of a grant or
grant amendment for a design/construct
project the items in paragraphs Training facility iir&ieet. An arid-
eation for prant assistance for con^unc-
tSon of a training facility pur.VL.^it to
section 109 (b) of the Act shall includa
(1) a statement concerning the suitabil-
ity of the treatment works facility for
183
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5261
training operation and maintenance per-
sonnel for treatment works throughout
one or more States; (2) a written com-
mitment from the State agency or agen-
cies to carry out at such facility a
program of training approved by the Re-
gional Administrator; and (3) an engi-
neering report, including facility design
data, cost estimates for design and con-
struction of the facility, and a schedule
for completion of design and
construction.
§ 35.925 Limitations on award.
Before awarding Initial grant assist-
ance for any project for a treatment
works through a grant or grant amend-
ment, the Regional Administrator shall
determine that all of the applicable re-
quirements of { 35.920-3 have been met
and shaU further determine:
§ 35.925—1 Facilities planning.
That the facilities planning require-
ments set forth In {{35.917 through
35.917-9 have been met. Requirements
set forth In {35.150-1 and { 35.150-2
are not applicable.
g 35.925-2 Basin plan.
That such works are In conformity
with any applicable final basin plan ap-
proved In accordance with section 303
(e) of the Act.
§ 35.925-3 Priority determination.
That such works have been determined
to be entitled to priority In accordance
with i 35.915, and that the award of
grant assistance for the proposed project
will not jeopardize the funding of any
treatment works of higher priority.
§ 35.925-4 State allocation.
That the award of grant assistance for
the project will not cause the total of
all grant assistance awarded to appli-
cants within a State, Including grant In-
creases, to exceed the total of all allot-
ments and reallotments available to such
State pursuant to $ 35.910.
g 35.925-5 Funding and other capabil-
ities.
That the applicant has:
(a) Agreed to pay the non-Federal
project costs, and
(b) Has the legal, institutional, man-
agerial, and financial capability to insure
adequate construction, operation, and
maintenance of the treatment works
throughout the applicant's jurisdiction.
§ 35.925-4 Permits.
THAT If the award Is for a Step 2,
Step 3, or combination Step 2 and 3
project, the applicant has provided an
identification of effluent discharge limi-
tations or, If available, a copy of a permit
as required by the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System.
§ 35.925-7 Design.
That the treatment works design will
be (In the case of projects Involving
Step 2) or has been (in the case of proj-
ects for Step 3) based upon the follow-
ing:
(a) The design, size, and capacity of
such works are cost effective and relate
directly to the needs to be served by
such works, including adequate reserve
capacity;
(b) Such works will meet applicable
effluent limitations and attain not less
than secondary treatment as defined by
the Administrator pursuant to section
301 (b) (1) (B) and 304(d) (1) of the Act
(See Part 133 of this chapter), subject
to the limitations set forth in § 35.930-4;
(c) The infiltration/inflow require-
ments of { 35.927 have been met; and
(d) If the initial grant assistance for
the project is to be awarded from funds
authorized for any fiscal year beginning
after June 30,1974, subject to the limita-
tions set forth in $ 35.930-4; (1) alter-
native waste treatment management
techniques have been studied and
evaluated to provide for the application
of the best practicable waste treatment
technology over the life of the works
consistent with the purposes of Title H
of the Act, and (2) the design has, as ap-
propriate, taken Into account and al-
lowed to the extent practicable for the
application of technology, at a later date,
which will provide for the reclaiming or
recycling of water or otherwise eliminate
the discharge of pollutants.
§ 35.925—8 Environmental review.
That the NEPA requirements (Part 6
of this chapter), applicable to the proj-
ect step, have been met Such compliance
is a basic prerequisite for Step 2, Step 3,
and combination Step 2 and 3 projects.
An adequate assessment of expected en-
vironmental impacts, consistent with the
requirements of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 TTJS.C. 4321
et seq.), Is required as an Integral part
of facilities planning Initiated after
April 30, 1974, in accordance with
S 35.917-1.
§35.925-9 Civil righto.
That If the award of grant assistance
Is for a project Involving Step 2 or 3, the
applicable requirements of Title VX of
the Clvfl Rights Act of 1064 (See Part
7 of this chapter) have been met.
§ 35.925—10 Operation and maintenance
program.
If the award of grant assistance Is for
a project Involving Step 3, that satisfac-
tory provision has been made by the ap-
plicant for assuring proper and efficient
operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works, In accordance with t 35.935-
12. and that the State will have an ef-
fective operation and maintenance
monitoring program to assure that treat-
ment works assisted under this subpart,
comply with applicable permit and grant
conditions.
§ 35.925-11 User charges.
That, in the case of grant assistance
awarded after March 1, 1973, for a proj-
ect involving Step 2 or Step 3, an ap-
provable plan and schedule of imple-
mentation have been developed for a
system of user charges to assure that
each recipient of waste treatment serv-
ices within the applicants service area
will pay Its proportionate share of the
costs of operation and maintenance (In-
cluding replacement as denned in
5 35.905-17) of all waste treatment serv-
ice provided by the applicant and the
applicant must agree that such sys-
tem (s) will be maintained. See Appendix
B to this subpart.
§ 35.925—12 Industrial cost recovery.
(a) That, in the case of any grant as-
sistance awarded after March 1,1973, for
a project involving Step 2 or Step 3,
signed letters of intent have been re-
ceived by the applicant from each sig-
nificant industrial user to pay that por-
tion of the grant amount allocable to the
treatment of its wastes. Each such letter
shall also Include a statement of the in-
dustrial user's Intended period of use of
the treatment works. A significant in-
dustrial user is one that will contribute
greater than 10 percent of the design
flow or design pollutant loading of the
treatment works. In addition, the appli-
cant must agree to require an industrial
users to pay that portion of the grant
amount allocable to the treatment of
wastes from such users.
(b) Projects awarded grant assistance
prior to March 2,1973 are subject to the
requirements of {35.835-5 In lieu of
paragraph, (a) of this section.
§ 35.925-13 Sewage Collection System.
That, if the project is for, or Includes,
sewage collection system work, such work
(a) is for replacement or major rehabili-
tation of an existing sewer system pur-
suant to S 35.927-3(a) and Is necessary to
the total integrity and performance of
the waste treatment works servicing such
community, or (b) is for a new sewer sys-
tem in a community in existence on Octo-
ber 18, 1972, with sufficient existing or
planned capacity to adequately treat
such collected sewage. Replacement or
major rehabilitation of an existing sewer
system may be approved only If cost ef-
fective and must result In a sewer system
design capacity equivalent only to that of
the existing system plus a reasonable
amount for future growth. A community,
for purposes of this'section, would in-
clude any area wtth substantial human
habitation on October 18,1972. No award
may be made for a new sewer system in
a community in existence on October 18,
1972 unless it is further determined by
the Regional Administrator that the bulk
(generally two-thirds) of the flow design
capacity through the sewer system will
be for waste waters originating from the
community (habitation) in existence on
October 18,1972.
§ 35.925—14 Compliance with Environ-
mental Laws.
That the treatment works wfll comply
with an pertinent requirements of the
Clean Air Act and other applicable Fed-
eral, State and local environmental laws
and regulations.
§ 35.925-15 Treatment of industrial
wastes.
That the allowable project costs do not
include costs allocable to the treatment
184
-------
5262
RULES AND REGULATIONS
for control or removal of pollutants In
•wastes iiitrcKiucec! into the treatment
works by industrial users unless the ap-
plicant is required to remove such pol-
lutants introduced from non-industrial
sources; and that the project is included
in a waste treatment system, a principal
purpose of which project and system is
the treatment of domestic wastes of the
entire community, area, region or district
concerned. A "waste treatment system",
for purposes of this section, means one
or more treatment works which provide
integrated but i:ot necessarily intercon-
nected waste disposal for the community,
area, region or district. See the pretreat-
ment standards set forth in Part 128 of
this Chapter.
§35.923-16 Federal activities.
That the allowable project costs do not
include costs allocable to the treatment
of wastes from major -activities of the
Federal Government, which another
Federal Agency has agreed to pay. Such
Federal agencies may extend, over a
period of years, their contributions to
support capital costs incurred by munic-
ipal treatment facilities which provide
service to them.
§ 35.925-17 Retained amounts for re-
construction and expansion.
That the allowable project costs have
been reduced by an amount equal to the
unexpended balance of the amounts re-
tained by the applicant for future recon-
struction and expansion pursuant to
§ 35.928-2, together with interest earned
thereon.
§ 35.925—IS Limitation upon project
costs incurred prior to award.
That project construction has not been
initiated prior to the approved date of
initiation of construction (as defined in
§35.905-4), except as otherwise pro-
vided in this section. Generally, payment
is not authorized for costs incurred prior
to the approved date of initiation of con-
struction, which shall be established in
the grant agreement, in accordance with
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this
section.
(a) Steps 1 or 2:
(1) No prior approval or prior grant
award is required for Step 1 or Step 2
work initiated prior to November 1,1974;
payment for all such allowable costs in-
curred after the r.pproved date of initia-
tion of construction is authonred in
conjunction with the first award of grant
assistance.
(.2) In the case of Step 1 or Step 2
project work initiated after October 31,
1974, no payment is authorized for:
(i) Step 1 costs incurred prior to the
date of approval of a plan to study (see
§5 35.917 and 35.930-3(3) (1)); and
(ii) Step 2 costs incurred prior to the
date of approval of a facilities plan (.see
§535.917 and 35.930-3(b) (1)); payment
for all Step 1 or Step 2 costs incurred
after such dates of approval are au-
thoiixed in conjunction, with the first
av.p.rd of grant assistance.
<3> Where Step 1 or Step 2 project
work is initiated after June 30, 1975, no
grant assistance for the Step 1 or Step 2
project work may be awarded unless such
award precedes Initiation of the proj-
ect wark: Provided, That in lieu of
award of n, Step 1 grant" after June 30.
1975, the State agency may request the
Regional Administrator to reserve funds
for Step 1 grant aisistan.ee (based upon
approval of the plan of study) and to
defer award of grant assistance for Step
1 work, which award, however, must in
any event be made within the allotment
period for the reserved funds.
(b) Step 3: Except as otherwise pro-
vided in tljjs subparagraph, no grant as-
sistance for a Step 3 project may be
awarded unless such award precedes ini-
tiation of the Step 3 construction. Ad-
vance acquisition of major equipment
items requiring long lead times, or ad-
vance construction of minor portions of
treatment works, in emergencies or in-
stances where delp.y could result in sig-
nificant cost increases, may be approved
by the Regional Administrator, but only
(1) if the applicant submits a written
and adequately substantiated request for
approval, and (2) if written approval by
the Regional Administrator is obtained
prior to initiation of the advance ac-
quisition or advance construction.
(c) The approval of a plan of study, a
facilities pl&n, or of advance acquisition
of equipment or advance construction
will not constitute a commitment for ap-
proval of grant assistance for a sub-
sequent treatment works project, but will
allow payment for the previously ap-
proved costs as allowable project costs
upon subsequent, award of grant assist-
ance, if requested prior to grant award
(see |35.945(a)>. In instances where
such approval is obtained, the applicant
proceeds at its own risk, since payment
for such costs cannot be made unless
and until grant assistance for the proj-
ect is awarded.
§ 35.925-19 Section 208: Agencies and
plans.
That, pursuant to section 208 (d) of the
Act, after a waste treatment manage-
ment agency has been designated for an
area, and a final plan for such area has
been approved, the applicant is the des-
ignated agency and the treatment works
project is in conformity with such plan.'
§ 35.927 Sewer system evaluation mid
rehabilitation.
(a) All applicants for grant assistance
awarded after July 1, 1973. must demon-
strate to the satisfaction of the Regional
Administrator that each sewer system
discharging into the treatment works
project for which grant application is
made is not or will not be subject to
excessive infiltration/inflow. The deter-
mination whether excessive infiltra-
tion/inflow exists, may take into account,
In addition to flow and related data.
other significant factors such as cost-
effectiveness (including the cost of sub-
stantial treatmont works construction
delay, see Appendix A to this subpart),
public health emergencies, the effects of
plant bypassing or overloading, or rele-
vant economic or environmental factors.
(b) The determination whether or not
excessive infiltration/Inflow exists will
generally be accomplished through, a
sewer system evaluation consisting of (1 >
certification by the State agency, as ap-
propriate; and, when necessary (2) an
infiltration/inflow analysis; and, if ap-
propriate, (3) a sewer system evaluation
survey followed by rehabilitation of the
sewer system to eliminate an excessive
infiltration/inflow defined in the sewer
system evaluation. Information sub-
mitted to the Regional Administrator for
such determination should be the mini-
mum necessary to enable a judgment to
be made.
(c) Guidelines on sewer system evalu-
ation published by the Administrator
provide further advisory information.
§ 35.927-1 Infiltration/Inflow analysis.
(a) The infiltration/inflow analysis
shall demonstrate the non-existence or
possible existence of excessive infiltra-
tion/inflow in each sewer system tribu-
tary to the treatment works. The
analysis should identify the presence.
flow rate, and type of infiltration /inflow
conditions, which exist in the sewer sys-
tems. Information to be obtained and
evaluated in the analysis should include,
to the extent appropriate, the following:
(1) Estimated flow data at the treat-
ment facility, all significant, overflows
and bypasses, and, if necessary, flows at
key points within the sewer system.
(2) Relationship of existing- popula-
tion and industrial contribution to flows
in the sewer system.
(3) Geographical and geological con-
ditions which may affect the present and
future flow rates or correction costs lor
the infiltration/inflow.
(4) A discussion of age, length, type.
materials, of construction and known
physical condition of the sewer system.
(b) For determination of the possible
existence of excessive infiltration/inflow,
the analysis shall include an estimate of
the cost of eliminating the infiltration.'
inflow conditions. These costs shall be
compared with estimated total costs for
transportation and treatment of the
infiltration/inflow. Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines (Appendix A to th;p
subpart), which contain advisory infor-
mation, should be consulted with respect
to this determination.
(c) If the infiltration/inflow analysis
demonstrates the existence or possible
existence of excessive infiltration/inflow
a detailed plan for a sewer system evalu-
ation survey shall be included in the
analysis. The plan shall outline the tasks
to be performed in the survey and their
estimated costs.
system cvnliinl!on
§ 35.927-2 Sewer
survey.
(a) The sewer system evaluation sur-
vey shall consist of a systematic exami-
nation of the sewer systems to determine
the specific location, estimated flow r;-.u%
method of rehabilitation &::•-. cost of re-
habilitation versus cost of U u--poriaUcn
and treatment for each . -r-d source
of infiltration/Inflow.
185
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5263
(b) The results of the sewer system
evaluation survey shall be summarized
in a report In addition, the report shall
include:
(1) A justification for each sewer sec-
tion cleaned and internally Inspected.
(2) A proposed rehabilitation program
for the sewer systems to eliminate all de-
nned excessive infiltration/inflow.
§ 35.927-3 Rehabilitation.
(a) The scope of each treatment works
project defined within the Facilities Plan
as being required for implementation of
the Plan, and for which Federal assist-
ance will be requested, shall define (1)
any necessary new treatment works con-
struction, and (2) any rehabilitation
work determined by the sewer system
evaluation to be necessary for the elimi-
nation of excessive Infiltration/inflow.
However, rehabilitation which should be
a part of the applicant's normal opera-
tion and maintenance responsibilities
shall not be included within the scope
of a Step 3 treatment works project.
(b) Grant assistance for a Step 3
project segment consisting of rehabilita-
tion work may be awarded concurrently
with Step 2 work for the design of the
new treatment works construction.
§ 35.927—4 Sewer use ordinance.
Each applicant for grant assistance for
a Step 2. Step 3, or combination Steps 2
and 3 project shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Regional Administra-
tor that a sewer use ordinance or other
legally binding requirement will be en-
acted and enforced in each jurisdiction
served by the treatment works project
before the completion of construction.
The ordinance shall prohibit any new
connections from inflow sources into the
sanitary sewer portions of the sewer sys-
tem and shall ensure that new sewers
and connections to the sewer system are
properly designed and constructed.
§ 35.927—S Project procedures.
(a) State certification. The State
agency may (but need not) certify that
excessive Inflltration/inflow does or does
not exist. The Regional Administrator
will determine that excessive Infiltration/
inflow does not exist on the basis of State
certification, if he finds that the State
had adequately established the basis for
its certification through submission of
only the minimum information necessary
to enable a judgment to be made. Such
information could include a preliminary
review by the applicant or State, for ex-
ample, of such parameters as per capita
design flow, ratio of flow to design flow,
flow records or flow estimates, bypasses
or overflows, or summary analysis of
hydrological, geographical, and geologi-
cal conditions, but tills review would not
usually be equivalent to a complete
infiltration/inflow analysis. State cer-
tification must be on a project-by-project
basis. If the Regional Administrator de-
termines on the basis of State certifica-
tion that the treatment works Is or may
be subject to excessive infiltration/
inflow, no Step 2 or Step 3 grant assist-
ance may be awarded except as provided
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Pre-award sewer system evalua-
tion. Generally, except as otherwise pro-
vided in paragraph (c) of this section, an
adequate sewer system evaluation, con-
sisting of a sewer system analysis and, if
required, an evaluation survey, is an es-
sential element of Step 1 facilities plan-
ning and Is a prerequisite to the award of
Step 2 or 3 grant assistance. If the
Regional Administrator determines
through State Certification or an in-
filtration/inflow analysis that excessive
infiltration/inflow does not exist, Step
2 or 3 grant assistance may be awarded.
If on the basis of State certification or
the infiltration/inflow analysis, the Re-
gional Administrator determines that
possible excessive infiltration/inflow ex-
ists, an adequate sewer system evaluation
survey and, if required, a rehabilitation
program must be furnished, except as set
forth hi paragraph (c) of this section
before grant assistance for Step 2 or 3
can be awarded. A Step 1 grant may be
awarded for the completion of this seg-
ment of Step 1 work, and, upon comple-
tion of Step 1, grant assistance for a Step
2 or 3 project (for which priority has been
determined pursuant to 5 35.915) may
be awarded.
(c) Exception. In the event it is deter-
mined by the Regional Administrator
that the treatment works would be re-
garded (in the absence of an acceptable
program of correction) as being subject
to excessive or possible excessive infiltra-
tion/inflow, grant assistance may be
awarded provided that the applicant es-
tablishes to the satisfaction of the Re-
gional Administrator that the treatment
works project for which grant application
is made will not be significantly changed
by any subsequent rehabilitation pro-
gram or will be a component part of any
rehabilitated system: Provided, That the
applicant agrees to complete the sewer
system evaluation and any resulting re-
habilitation on an implementation
schedule the State accepts (subject to
approval by the Regional Administra-
tor) , which schedule shall be inserted as
a special condition in the grant agree-
ment. Compliance with this schedule
shall be accomplished pursuant to § 35.-
935-16 and § 30.304 of this chapter.
(d) Municipalities may submit the in-
filtration/inflow analysis and when ap-
propriate the sewer system evaluation
survey, through the State agency, to the
Regional Administrator for his review at
any time prior to application for a treat-
ment works grant. Based on such a re-
view, the Regional Administrator shall
provide the municipality with a written
response indicating either his concur-
rence or nonconcurrence. The Regional
Administrator must concur with the
sewer system evaluation survey plan be-
fore the work is performed for the survey
to be an allowable cost.
§ 35.928 Industrial cost recovery.
The system for Industrial cost recovery
shall be approved by the Regional Ad-
ministrator and shall be Implemented
and maintained by the grantee in accord-
ance with ! 35.935-13 and the following
requirements.
§ 35.928-1 Recovered amounts.
(a) Each year during the industrial
cost recovery period, each industrial user
of the treatment works shall pay its share
of the total amount of the grant and
any grant amendment awarded pursuant
to this subpart, divided by the recovery
period.
(b) The industrial cost recovery period
shall be equal to 30 years or the useful
life of the treatment works, whichever
is less.
(c) Payments shall be made by in-
dustrial users no less often than annu-
ally. The first payment by an industrial
user shall be made not later than 1 year
after such user begins use of the treat-
ment works.
(d) An industrial user's share shall
be based on all factors which signifi-
cantly influence the cost of the treatment
works. Factors such as strength, volume,
and delivery flow rate characteristics
shall be considered and included to in-
sure a proportional distribution of the
grant assistance allocable to industrial
use to all industrial users of the treat-
ment works. As a minimum, an industry's
share shall be proportional to its flow,
in relation to treatment works flow
capacity.
(e) If there is a substantial change in
the strength, volume, or delivery flow rate
characteristics introduced into the treat-
ment works by an industrial user, such
user's share shall be adjusted accord-
ingly.
(f) If there is an expansion or upgrad-
ing of the treatment works, each existing
industrial user's share shall be adjusted
accordingly.
(g) An industrial user's share shall in-
clude only that portion of the grant as-
sistance allocable to its use or to capacity
firmly committed for its use.
(h) All unallocated treatment works
capacity must conform with the require-
ments of section 204(a) (5) of the Act.
Cost-eSectiveness guidelines are pub-
lished as Appendix A to this subpart to
furnish additional advisory information
concerning the implementation of sec-
tion 212(2) (C) of the Act.
(i) An industrial user's share shall not
include an interest component.
§ 35.928-2 Retained amounts.
(a) The grantee shall retain 50 per-
cent of the amounts recovered from in-
dustrial users. The remainder, together
with any interest earned thereon, shall
be returned to the U.S. Treasury on an
annual basis.
(b) A minimum of 80 percent of the
retained amounts, together with Interest
earned thereon, shall be used solely for
the eligible costs (in accordance with
§ 35.940) of the expansion or reconstruc-
tion of treatment works associated with
the project and necessary to meet the
requirements of the Act. The grantee
shall obtain the written approval of the
Regional Administrator prior to commit-
186
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
mcnt of the retained amounts for any
expansion and reconstruction. The re-
mainder of the retained amounts raay be
used as the grantee sees fit.
(c) Pending use, the grantee shall In-
vest the retained amounts lor reconstruc-
tion and expansion in: (1) Obligations of
the U.S. Government; or (2) obligations
guaranteed as to principal and interest
by the UJ5. Government or any agency
thereof; or (3) shall deposit such
amounts in accounts fully collaterallzed
by obligations of ths U.S. Government or
by obligations fully guaranteed as to
principal'and interest by the U.S. Gov-
ernment or any agency thereof.
§ 35.930 Award of gram assistance.
Approval by the Regional Administra-
tor of an application or amendments
thereto through execution of a erf-iit
agreement (including a grant amend-
ment) , in accordance with I 30.305 of
this subchapter, shall constitute a con-
tractual obligation of the United States
lor the payment of the Federal share of
the allowable project costs, as determined
by the Regional Administrator. Informa-
tion concerning the approved project fur-
nished in accordance with § 35.920-3
shall be deemed to be incorporated In the
grant agreement.
S 35.930-1 Types of projects.
(a) The Regional Administrator may
award grant assistance for the following
types of projects pursuant to $ 35.925:
* (1) Step 1. A facilities plan and/or re-
lated elements required to apply for Step
2 grant assistance (see J 35.920-3 Cb»:
Provided, That he determines that the
applicant has submitted the Items re-
quired pursuant to i 35.920-3 (a);
(2) Step 2. Preparation of construction
drawings and specifications: Provided,
That he determines that the applicant
has submitted the Items required pursu-
ant to! 35.920-3 (b);
(3) Step 3. Building and erection of a
treatment works: Provided, That he de-
termines that the applicant has sub-
mitted the Items required pursuant to
§ 35.920-3(0); or
(4) Steps 2 and 3. A combination of
design (Step 2) and construction (Step
3> for a treatment works la the case of
grants awarded after March 1.1913:
(1) Where the Regional Administrator
determines that compelling water quality
enforcement considerations or public
health emergencies warrant award of
such grant assistance to assure expedi-
tious construction of such treatment
•works, or
(U) Where the Regional Administrator
determines that award of such grant as-
sistance will minimize administrative re-
quirements in the case of projects not re-
quiring a substantial amount of Federal
assistance: Provided, That the award au-
thority provided by this subparasraph
(4) is subject to the following conditions:
that (A) the Regional Administrator
determines that the applicant has sub-
mitted the items pursuant to $ 35.920-3
e must Include a step or
an identified segment thereof. With re-
spect to any grant assistance for a treat-
ment works project which is initially
funded from funds allocated for any fis-
cal year beginning after June 30, 1974,
provision, must be mcds for the applica-
tion of best practicable waste treatment
technology over the life of the treatment
works. However, a. era nt may be made for
a segment of Step 3 treatment works
construction, when that segment in and
of Itself docs not provide lor achieve-
ment of applicable effluent discharge
limitations (secondary treatment, best
practicable waste treatment technology,
or water quality effluent limitations),
provided that: (a) The segment is to be
a component of an operable treatment
works which will provide for achieve-
ment of the applicable effluent discharge
limitations, and (b) a commitment for
completion of the complete treatment
works is submit-ted to the Regional Ad-
ministrator and is incorporated as a spe-
cial condition in the grant agreement.
§ 35.930-5 Federal share.
The grant shall be 75 percent of the
estimated total cost of construction of
the project approved by tne Regional
Administrator in the grant agree-
ment, except as otherwise provided in
1535.925-15, 35.925-15, 35-D25-17. and
35.930-1 (b).
§ 35.930—6 Limitation on Federal share.
The grantee must exert its best efforts
to perform the project work ss specified
In the grant agreement within the ap-
proved cost ceiling. If at any time the
grantee has reason to believe that the
costs which it expects to Incur in the per-
formance of the project will exceed or be.
substantially less than the then approved
estimated total project cost, the grantee
must notify the Regional Administrator
and the State agency promptly In writ-
ing to that effect, giving the revised cstl-
mate of such total cost for the perform-
ance of tho project then or as soon
thereafter as practicable, pursuant to 40
CFR 30.900. Delay in submission of such
notice and excess cost Information may
prejudice approval of an increase in the
grant amount. The United States shall
not be obligated to pay for costs incurred
in excess of "the approved grant amount
or any amendment thereof until the
State has approved an increase in the
grant amount from available allotments
and the Regional Administrator has ap-,
proved such increase through issuance of
a written grant amendment pursuant to
Si 35.915 and 35.955. Grant payments
will be made pursuant to S 35.945.
§ 35.935 Grant conditions.
In addition to the EPA General Grant
Conditions (Subpart C of Part 30 and
Appendix A to this subchapter), each
treatment works grant shall be subject
to the following conditions:
§ 35.935-1 Non-Federal construction
costs.
The grantee agrees to pay, pursuant to
section 204(a) (4) of the Act, the non-
Federal costs of treatment works con-
struction associated with the project
and commits itself to complete the con-
struction of the operable treatment
works (see 135.905-15) and complete
waste treatment system (see §35.905-3)
of which the project is a part.
§ 35.935-2 Procurement; nonrc'lrirlive
specifications.
(a) General. Tlie grantee must com-
ply with f 35.938 of this subpart in the
187
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5265
construction of any Step 3 or Step 2+3
project Performance of Step 2 and Step
3 project work may not be accomplished
by force account except for (1) Step 1
or Step 2 Infiltration/inflow work for
which prior written approval has been
obtained in accordance with 5§ 35.927 to
35.927-5 and (2) segments of Step 3
work, the cost of which Is estimated to be
under $25,000. The Regional Administra-
tor will cause appropriate review of
grantee procurement methods to be made
from time to time.
(b) Nonrestrictive specifications. No
specification for bids or statement of
work in connection with such works shall
be written in such a manner as to con-
tain proprietary, exclusionary, or dis-
criminatory requirements other than
those based upon performance, unless
such requirements are necessary to test
or demonstrate a specific thing or to pro-
vide for necessary Intel-changeability of
parts and equipment, or at least two
brand names or trade names of com-
parable quality or utility are listed and
are followed by the words "or equal." The
single base bid method of solicitation for
equipment and parts for determination
of a low, responsive bidder may not be
utilized. With regard to materials, if a
single material is specified, the grantee
must be prepared to substantiate the
basis for the selection of the material.
§ 35.935—3 Bonding and insurance.
On contracts for the building and erec-
tion of treatment works (Step 3) exceed*
ing $100.000, each bidder must furnish
a bid guarantee equivalent to 5 percent
of the bid price. In addition the contrac-
tor awarded either a design/construct
contract or a construction contract for
Step 3 must furnish performance and
payment bonds, each of which shall be in
an amount not less than 100 percent of
the contract price. Construction con-
tracts less than $100,000 shall be subject
to State and local requirements relating
to bid guarantees, performance and pay-
ment bonds. Contractors should obtain
such construction insurance
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
<1) The user charge system must re-
sult In the distribution of the cost of
operation and maintenance of ti'eat-
ment worts within the grantee's precise
area to each user of user charges and industrial
cost recovery, implementation and main-
tenance of such approved systemCs) and
Implementation schedules therefor, shall
become a condition of the grant and the
grantee shall be subject to the provisions
with respect to non-compliance with
grant conditions of J 30.404 of this
chapter.
) and
35.920-3(e), the grantee must provide as-
surance that the treatment works will be
operated as such a training facility for
a period of at least ten years, upon com-
pletion of construction.
§ 35.937 Contracts for personal and
professional ecrvicee. [Reserved]
§ 35.938 Construction contracts of
grantees.
§ 35.938-1 Applicability.
This section applies to contracts
awarded by grantees for any Step 3
project or Step 2+3 project, except per-
sonal and professional cervice contracts.
§ 35.938-2 Performance by contract.
It is the policy of the Environmental
Protection Agency to encourage free and
open competition with regard to project
work performed by contract. The project
work shall be performed under one. or
more contracts awarded by tbe grantee
to private firms, except for force account
work authorized by J 35.935-2. The fol-
lowing sections define EPA policy for the
Implementation of the procurement
standards set forth in Office of Manage-
ment and Budget Circular No. A-102. At-
tachment O (printed at 38 FR 21345,
August 7, 1973). Grantee procurement
systems should as a minimum provide
for the following:
I 35.933-3 Type of contract.
Each contract shall be either a fixed-
price (lump sum) contract or fixed-rate.
(unit price) contract, or a combination
of the two, unless the Regional Adminis-
trator gives advance written approvrj for
the grantee to use .some otter method of
contracting. The coGt-plus-a-pcrcPiit-aso
of cost method of contracting shall not
be used.
§ 33.933—t Formal advertising.
Each contract shall be awarded by
means of formal advertising, unless ne-
gotiation is permitted in accordance with
5 35.938-5. Formal advertising shall be in
accordance with the following:
(a) Adequate public notice. The
grantee will cause adequate notice to be
given ol the solicitation by publication
in newspapers or journals of general cir-
culation, beyond the grantee's locality
(Statewide, generally) inviting bids on
the project wox'k, and stating the method
by •rchlcji bidding document;-, may be ob-
tained and /or examined. Where the esti-
mated prospective cost of Step 3 con-
struction Is ten million dollars or more,
such noi-ice must generally be published
In trade journals of Nationwide distri-
bution. The grantee should In addition
solicit bids directly from bidders, if it
maintains a bidders list.
(b) A&ewuite time for preparing bids.
Adequate time, generally not less than
30 days must be allowKl between th3
date when public notice pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section Is flr»t
published and the date by which bids
must be submitted. Bidding documents
(Including specifications and drawing's)
shall be available to prospective bidders
from the date when such notice is first
published.
(c) Adequate Mddfrip documents. A
reasonable number of bidding documents
(Invitations for bid) shall be prepared
by grantee and shall be furnished upon
request on a first-come, first-served
basis. A complete set of bidding docu-
ments shall be maintained by grantee
and shall bo available for Inspection and
copying by any party. Such bidding
documents shall Include:
(DA complete statement of the work
to be performed, including necessary
drawings and specifications, and the re-
quired completion schedule. (Drawings
and specifications may be made available
for Inspection instead of being fur-
nished.) ;
(2) The terms and conditions of the
contract to be awarded:
(3) A clear explanation of the method
of bidding and the method of evaluation
of bid prices, and the basis and method
for award of the contract;
(4) Responsibility requirements or cri-
teria which will be employed In evalua-
ting bidders; Provided, That an experi-
ence requirement or performance bond
may not be utilized unless adequately
Justified under the particular circum-
stances by the grantee;
(5) The following statement:
Any contract or contracts awarded under
this Invitation for Bids ere expected to ba
funded In part by a grant from tho Unit«i
States Environmental Protection- Agecor.
Neither the United States nor any o* its de-
189
-------
partmenta, agencies or employees Is at will
be fc party to this Invitation for Bids or any
resulting contract.;
and
(6) A copy of $ 35.938 and S 35.039.
(d) Sealed bids. The grantee shall pro-
vide for bidding by sealed bid and for
the safeguarding of bids received until
public opening.
Amendments to bidding docu-
ments. If grantee desires to amend any
part of the bidding documents (includ-
ing drawings and specifications) during
the period when bids are being prepared,
the amendments shall be communicated
in writing to all firms who have obtained
bidding documents in time to be con-
sidered prior to the bid opening time;
when appropriate, the period for submis-
sion of bids shall be extended.
(f) Bid modifications. A firm which
has submitted a bid shall be allowed to
modify or withdraw its bid prior to the
time of bid opening.
(g) Public opening of bids. Grantee
shall provide for a public opening of
bids at the place, date and time an-
nounced m the bidding documents.
(h) Award to the low responsive, re-
sponsible bidder. (1) After bids are
opened, they shall be evaluated by
grantee in accordance with the meth-
ods and criteria set forth in the bid-
ding documents.
(2) Unless all bids are rejected, award
shall be made to the low, responsive,
responsible bidder.
(3) If award is intended to be made
to a firm which did not submit the low-
est bid, a written statement shall be
prepared prior to any award and re-
tained by the grantee explaining why
each lower bidder was deemed not re-
sponsive or nonresponsive.
<4) State or local laws, ordinances,
regulations or procedures which are de-
signed or operate to give local or in-
State bidders preference over other
bidders shall not be employed in evaluat-
ing bids.
§ 35.938-5 Negotiation.
Negotiation of contracts (i.e., award
of contracts by any method other than
formal advertising) is authorized if it
is impracticable and infeasible to use
formal advertising. Negotiated contracts
must be competitively awarded to the
muTMrrmm practicable extent. Generally,
procurements may be negotiated by the
grantee if:
(a) Public exigency will not permit
the delay incident to advertising (e.g.,
an emergency procurement);
or
delivered no later than five working days.
after the bid opening. A request for re-
view by the Regional Administrator pur-
suant to paragraph (b) of this section
must be received by the Regional Admin-
istrator within one week after the com-
plaining party received the grantee's ad-
verse determination.
'd) Deferral of Procurement Action.
Where the grantee has received a written
compliant pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section, it must defer issuance of its
solicitation or award or notice to proceed
under the contract (as appropriate) for
ten days after mailing or delivery of any
written adverse determination. Where
the Regional Administrator has received •
a written protest pursuant to paragraph
(b) of this section, he must notify the
grantee promptly and the grantee must
defer issuance of its solicitation or award
of the construction contract, as appro-
priate, until ten days after it receives
the determination by the Regional Ad-
ministrator. If a determination is made
by either the grantee or the Regional Ad-
ministrator which is favorable to the
complainant, the terms of the solicita-
tion must be revised or the contract must
be awarded (as appropriate) in accord-
ance with such determination.
(e) Enforcement. Noncompllance with
the provisions of this subchapter affect-
ing procurement will result In (1) total
190
-------
RULES AND REGULAT5ONS
or partial termination of the grant pur-
suant to § 35.950, (2) inelieibility for
grant assistance which coukl otherwise
be awarded under this subchapter or <3)
disallowance of project costs (see
| 35.940-2(j)) Incurred In violation of
the provisions of this subchnpter or ap-
plicable Federal laws, as determined by
the Regional Administrator. The grantee
may appeal adverse detenninat.ions by
the Regional Administrator In accord-
ance with the Disputes Article (Article
7 of Appendix A to Subchapter B of this
title).
§ 33.940 Determination of aHowaMc
costs.
The grantee will be paid, upon request,
In accordance with 5 35.945, for the Fed-
eral share of all necessary costs within
the scope of the approved project and
determined to be allowable in accord-
ance with § 30.701 of this chapter, this
subpart, and tiie grant agreement.
g 35.910-1 Allowable project costs.
Alloeable project cost* of the grantee
•which are reasonable and necessary are
allowable. Necessary costs may include,
but are not limited to:
(a) Costs of salaries, benefits, and ex-
pendable material incurred by the
grantee for the project, except as pro-
vided In § 940-2(e>.
(b) Costs under construction con-
tracts.
(c) Professional and consultant serv-
ices.
(d) Facility planning directly related
to the treatment works.
(e) Sewer system evaluation
(§35.927).
Preparation of construction draw-
ings, specifications, estimates, and con-
struction contract documents.
(j) Landscaping.
(k) Supervision of construction work.
(1) Removal and relocation or replace-
ment of utilities, for which the grantee
is legally obligated to pay. I
(m) Materials acquired, consumed, or
expended specifically for the project.
(n) A reasonable inventory of labora-
tory chemicals and supplies necessary to
initiate plant operations.
(o) Development and preparation of
an operation and maintenance manual.
(p) Project identification signs
(§ 30.604-4 of this chapter).
§ 35.940-2 Unallowable costs.
Costs which are not necessary for the
construction of a treatment works proj-
ect are unallowable. Such costs include,
but are not limited to:
(a) Basin or areawide planning not
directly related to the project;
(b) Bonus payments not legally re-
quired for completion of construction In
advance of e. contractual completion
dale;
(c.) Personal Injury compensation or
damages arising out of the project,
whether determined by adjudication,
arbitration, negotiation, or otherwise:
(d) Fines and penalties resulting from
violations of, or .failure to comply with,
Federal, State, or local laws;
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5269
has been paid under a grant, must bo
credited to the current State allotment
or paid to the United States. Reasonable
expenses incurred by the grantee for the
purpose of securing such refunds, re-
bates, credits, or other amounts shall be
allowable under the grant when approved
by the Regional Administrator.
(e) Final payment. Upon completion
of final inspection pursuant to I 35.935-
14 and approval of the request for pay-
ment designated by the grantee as the
"final payment request" and upon com-.
pliance by the grantee with all applicable
requirements of this subchapter and the
grant agreement, the Regional Adminis-
trator shall cause to be disbursed to the
grantees any balance of allowable proj-
ect cost which has not been paid to the
grantee. The final payment request must
be submitted by the grantee promptly
after final Inspection. Prior to final pay-
ment under the grant, the grantee must
execute and deliver an assignment to the
United States, in form and substance
satisfactory to the Regional Counsel, of
the Federal share of refunds, rebates,
credits or other amounts (including any
interest thereon) properly allocable to
costs for which the grantee has been
paid by the Government under the grant,
and a release discharging the United
States, its officers, agents, and employees
from all liabilities, obligations, and
claims arising out of the project work or
under the grant, subject only to such ex-
ceptions which may be specified in the
release.
§ 35.950 Suspension or termination of
grant*.
Grants may be suspended, in accord-
ance with § 30.902 of this subchapter and
Article 4 of the General Grant Condi-
tions (Appendix A to this subchapter),
or terminated, in accordance with 5 30.-
903 of this subchapter and Article 5 of
the General Grant Conditions (Appen-
dix A of this subchapter). The State
agency shall be concurrently notified in
writing of any such suspension or termi-
nation action.
§ 35.955 Grant amendments to increase
grant amounts.
Grant agreements may be amended in
accordance with § 30.901 of this chapter
with respect to project changes which
have been approved in accordance with
{30.900 and {35.935-11 of this sub-
chapter: Provided, That no grant agree-
ment may be amended to Increase the
amount of a grant unless the State
agency has approved the grant increase
from available State allotments and re-
allotments in accordance with § 35.915.
§ 35.960 Disputes.
Final determinations by the Regional
AriminiHt.rn.tnr concerning ineligibility of
projects for which priority has been de-
termined in accordance with { 35.915 and
final determinations by the Regional Ad-
ministrator concerning disputes arising
under a grant pursuant to this subpart
shaQ be final and conclusive unless ap-
pealed by the applicant or grantee within
SO days from the date of receipt of such
final determination In accordance with
the "Disputes" article of General Grant
Conditions (Article 7 of Appendix A to
this subchapter).
APPENDIX A
COST KFTTCTIYKNXSS ANAITSIS GOH> KLINES
a. Purpose.—These guidelines provide ad-
visory Information concerning basic method-
ology for determining the most cost-effectrw
waste treatment management system or the
most cost-effective component part of any
waste treatment management system.
b. Authority.—-The guidelines contained
herein are provided pursuant to section 213
(2) (C) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1872 (the Act).
c. Applicability.—These guidelines apply
to the development of plans for and the
selection of component parts of a waste
treatment management system for which a
Federal grant Is awarded under 40 CFB,
Part 35.
d. Definitions.—Definitions of terms used
In these guidelines are as follows:
(1) Waste treatment management sys-
tem.—A system used to restore the Integrity
of the Nation's waters. Waste treatment
management system Is used synonymously
with complete waste treatment system as de-
nned In 40 CFB, Part 35.905-3.
(2) Cost-effectiveness analysis.—An analy-
sis performed to determine which waste
treatment management system or compo-
nent part thereof will result In the minimum
total resources costs over time to meet the
Federal, State or local requirements.
(3) Planning period.—The period over
which a waste treatment management sys-
tem is evaluated for cost-effectiveness. The
planning period commences with the Initial
operation of the system.
04) Service H/e.—The period of time dur-
ing which a component of a waste treat-
ment management system will be capable of
performing a function.
(5) Useful life.—The period of time dur-
ing which a component of a waste treat-
ment management system will be required to
perform a function which Is necessary to
the system's operation.
e. Identification, selection ant screening
of alternatives—(1) Identification of alter-
natives.—An feasible alternative waste man-
agement systems shall be initially Identified.
These alternatives should Include systems
discharging to receiving waters, systems
using land or subsurface disposal techniques,
and systems employing the reuse of waste-
water. In Identifying alternatives, the possi-
bility of staged development of the system
shall be considered.
(2) Screening of alternatives.—The Iden-
tified alternatives shall be systematically
screened to define those capable of meeting
the applicable Federal, State, and local
criteria.
(3) Selection of alternatives.—The
screened alternatives shall be Initially ana-
lyzed to determine which systems have cost-
effective potential and which should be fully
evaluated according to the cost-effectiveness
analysis procedures established In these
guidelines.
(4) Extent of effort.—The extent of effort
and the level of sophistication used In the
cost-effectiveness analysis should reflect the
size and Importance of the project.
f. Cost-effective analysis procedures—(1)
Method of Analysis.—The resources costs
shall be evaluated through the use of oppor-
tunity costs. For those resources that can be
expressed In monetary terms, the Interest
(discount) rate established In section (f) (5)
will be used. Monetary costs shall be calcu-
lated in terms of present worth values or
equivalent annual values over the planning
period as defined In section (f)(2). Non-
monetary factors {e.g., social and environ-
mental) shall be accounted for descriptively
In the analysis In order to determine their
significance and Impact.
The most cost-effective alternative shall be
the waste treatment management system
determined from the analysis to have the
lowest present worth and/or equivalent an-
nual value without overriding adverse non-
monetary costs and to realize at least Identi-
cal minimum benefits in. terms of applicable
Federal, State, and local standards for ef-
fluent quality, water -quality, water reuse
and/or land and subsurface disposal.
(2) Planning period.—The planning period
for tha cost-effectiveness analysis shall be 20
years.
(3) Elements of costs.—The costs to be
considered shall Include the total values of
the resources atrtbutable to the waste treat-
ment management system or to one of Its
component parts. To determine these values,
all monies necessary for capital construction
costs and operation and maintenance costs
shall be Identified.
Capital construction costs used In a cost-
effective-ness analysis shall Include all con-
tractors' costs of construction Including over-
head and profit; costs of land, relocation, and
right-of-way and easement acquisition;
design engineering, field exploration, and en-
gineering services during construction; ad-
ministrative and legal services Including
costs of bond sales; startup costs such as op-
erator training; and Interest during con-
struction. Contingency allowances consistent
with the level of complexity and detail of the
cost estimates shall be Included.
Annual costs for operation and mainte-
nance (Including routine replacement of
equipment and equipment parts) shall be
Included In the cost-effectiveness analysis.
These costs shall be adequate to ensure ef*
fectlve and dependable operation during the
planning period for the system. Annual costs
shall be divided between fixed annual costs
and costs which would be dependent on the
annual quantity of wastewater collected and
treated.
(4) Prices.—The various components of
cost shall be calculated on the basis of mar-
ket prices prevailing at the time of the cost-
effectiveness analysis. Inflation of wages and
prices shall not be considered In the analysis.
The Implied assumption Is that all prices
Involved will tend to change over time by
approximately the same percentage. Thus,
the results of the cost effectiveness analysis
will not be affected by changes In the gen-
eral level of prices.
Exceptions to the foregoing can be made '
If there Is Justification for expecting signifi-
cant changes In the relative prices of certain
Items during the planning period. If such
cases are Identified, the expected change In
these prices should be made to reflect their
future relative deviation from the general
price level.
(5) Interest (discount) rate.—A rate of 7
percent per year will be used for the cost-
effectiveness analysis until the promulgation
of the Water Resources Council's "Proposed
Principles and Standards for Planning Water
and Belated Land Resources." After promul-
gation of the above regulation, the rat*
established for water resource projects shall
be used for the cost-effectiveness analysis.
(6) Interest during construction.—In case*
where capital expenditures can be expected
. to be fairly uniform during the construction
192
-------
ii270
RULES AND REGULATIONS
period. Interest during construction may b«
calculated as Ix % pXO where:
I=tho Interest (discount) rate m Bectlon
f(5).
p=the construction period In years.
C=the total capital expenditures.
In cases when expenditures will not be
uniform, or when tho construction period
will be greater than throe years, Interest dur-
ing const ruction shAll be calculated on a
year-by-year basis.
(7) Sen-tee li/e — The service life of treat-
ment works lor a cost -effectiveness analysis
shall be as follows:
Land _________________________ Permanent
Structures --------------- ----- 30-iO years
(includes plant buildings,
concrete process tankage,
basins, etc.; sewage collec-
tion and conveyance pipe-
lines; lift station struc-
tures; tunnels; outfalls)
Process equipment _____________ 15-30 years
(Includes major process
equipment Euch as clarifier
mechanisms, vacuum filters,
etc.; steel process tankage
and chemical storage facili-
ties; electrical generating
facilities on standby service
only).
Auxiliary equipment ----------- 10-15 years
(Includes Instruments and
control facilities; sewage
pumps and electric motors;
mechanical equipment such
as compressors, aeration sys-
tems. centrifuges, chlorl-
nators, etc.; electrical gen-
erating facilities ou regular
service).
Other service life periods will be acceptable
when sufficient justification can be provided.
Where a system or a component Is for
Interim service and the anticipated useful
life Is less than the service life, the useful
life shall be substituted for the service life of
the facility In the analysis.
(8) Salvage value. — Land for treatment
worke, including land used as part of the
treatment process or lor ultimate disposal of
residues, shall be assumed to have a salvage
value at the end of the planning period equal
to its prevailing market value at the time of
the analysis. Right-of-way easements shall
be considered to have a salvage value not
greater than the prevailing market value at
the time of the analysis.
Structures will be assumed to have s
salvage value If there Is a xise for such struc-
ture? at the end of the planning period. In
this case, salvage value shftU be estimated
using RtraightHne depreciation curing the
service life of the treatment works.
For phased additions of process equipment
»nd auxiliary equipment, salvage value at the
end of the planning period may be estimated
under the same conditions and on the same
basis as described above for structures.
When the anticipated useful life of a facil-
ity Is less than 20 years (for analysis of In-
terim facilities) , salvage value can be claimed
lor equipment where it can be clearly dem-
onstrated that a specific market or reuse
opportunity will exist.
APPENDIX B
. FEDERAL GUIDELINES
CHASGES FOX OPERATION ANT* KAINTE-
NAKCE OK PUBLICLY OVVTfLTJ TREATMENT
WOHKS
(a) Purpose. — To set forth advisory Infor-
mation concerning user charges pursuant to
Section 204 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of IS72, PL 82-500.
h.-;rc!'.i!e or more municipal legislative,
enactments or other appropriate authority.
If the project is n regional treatment works
accepting wastewaters from treatn-.ent works
owned by others, then the subscribers re-
ceiving waste treatment services from the
prantce rball have adopted user chare* tys-
teiTLS In accordance vri*"u this £ulue]i!ip. Such
user charge systems i,hall also tx; Iroorpc™
rr.ted In the appropriate municipal legisla-
tive enacunents or other appropriate
authority.
(f;) Model user chirye sysi— -A sui charge for wastcwater.s of exces-
sive tlrength.
V« = O&M cost for transportation and
treatment of a unit of wastewater
volume.
V«=Vol-jmc contribution from a user per
un ! t of time.
VT — Total volume contribution from all
users per unii of time.
Bc=O&M cost for treatment of a unit of
biochemical- oxygen demand (BOD).
Bo = Total BOD contribution from n user
per unit of time.
BT— Total BOD contribution from all users
per unit of tiir.r. -
B=Conceutrr.tif>n of BOD from a user
above a bas? level.
St = O&M cost for treatment of a unit of
suspeiided poiid.s.
Su=Total suspended solids contr;Sv.ticu
from a user per unit of time.
S= Concentration of SS from a user abc-. c
a base level.
P« = O&M co:;t fcr treatment of a unit of
any pollutnnt.
PB = Total contribution of any pollutant
from a user per unit of time.
Pr = Tolal. contribution of any pollutar.t
from all users per unit of time.
P= Concentration of nny pollutant from
a user above a bas? l^vel.
(1) Model No. 1. — If the treatment v?or?s
Is primarily now dependent or If the BOD.
suspended oolifis, and other pollutant con-
centrations discharged by all users are ap-
proximately equal, then user charges can be
developed on a volume basis in accordo/nce
with the model below:
Cr
Cu=— (Vu)
Vi
(2) Mode! No. 2. — When BOD, suspended
solids, or other pollutant concentrations from.
a user exceed the range of concentration of
these pollutants In normal domestic wwr.ge,
a surcharge added to a base charge, calcu-
lated by me"nns of Model No. 1, can be levlfd.
The surcharge can be computed by the model
below:
(3) Model 7/o. 3. — Thlfi model Is commonly
called the "quantity/quality formula":
(b) Other considerations. — (1) Quantity
discounts to large volume users will not be
acceptable. Savings resulting from ecoroirtes
of scale should be apportioned to all MEW«
or user classes.
(2) User charges may be established V.i:,s>>
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Reoo No
w
4 ut!,- USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES ON WASTEWATER
FACILITIES BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
JtCt and Speaker, D.M,
Teknekron, Inc.
Applied Research Division
1019 19th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
12. spooring Or. •uzauon Environmental Protection Agency
is. lupotemL-nurv i^to. Environmental Protection Agency Report
Number EPA-600/5-74-015, July, 1974
5. Report Date
6
8. Ferfoiniug Qrt istaticm
?< .port No.
10. Prujewl
68-01-1898
.13. Typ& of Report and
Period v
16. MyHMct
Four case study areas in which environmental analyses (assessments, impact
statements, negative declarations, appraisals, etc.) on wastewater treatment facilities
to be constructed were reviewed. Environmental analyses' reflected CEQ and EPA guide-
lines in force during 1970 and 1972. Case examples were selected to ensure representa-
tion of jurisdictional patterns, settings, and availability of environmental analyses.
The study reviewed decision-making processes of local and state governments. The study
identified and detected several types of problems, both substantative and procedural.
They were: inadequate environmental orientation of staffs; exclusion of lay public
input; intra/inter-organizational conflicts; inadequate guidelines; and timing of environ
mental analyses for local consideration of consequences. Recommendations included* *
legislative changes; Federal funding for staff training programs;.definitive guidelines
for organizational structuring; and recommendations "to increase greater lay public
participation during the planning and decision-making processes.
Analysis, evaluation, institutional constraints, administrative agencies,
water resources development, on-site investigations, and wastewater treatment.
i '•,
(XiWRR Field & Group
06B
H. Availability
','), Security Class.
(R'-poit)
?0. Secum, Class
21. No. of
Pages
11. Price
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
UA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O24O
Abstractor D. Robert Scherer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WM3IC 102 (REV. JUNt 1971?
W.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1974 582-414/106 1-3
------- |