UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, California 94105 oOo PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSTRUCTION GRANTS REGULATIONS Conference Rooms A-D June 28, 1978 10:00 a. m. 7:30 p. m. Reported by: RICHARD-S. ADAMS SMYTHE & WILSON CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 681 MARKET STREET. SUITE IOSS SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 64105 S-O—3184 AREA CODE ------- -2- 1 2 , HEARING PANEL 21157 3 4 MATTHEW S. WALKER Hearing Officer 5 Enforcement Division Region IX 6 Chairman 7 n ROBERT GERVAIS 8 Chief, Program Support Branch Water Division 9 Region IX 10 n DON ANDERSON 11 Construction Grants Coordinator Water Division 12 Region IX 13 14 oOo 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- -3- i INDEX 2 SPEAKERS Page 3 JUDITH KUNOFSKY, Sierra Club, San Francisco, California ./ 11 4 STEVE PARDIECK, California State 5 Water Resources Control Board .... 17 6 J. WARREN NUTE, Civil and Sanitary Engineer, Audubon Society, 7 San Rafael, California 20 8 AARON H. CRAIG, Plains, Montana 27 9 GEORGE P. GRIBKOFF, Raymond Vail and Associates, Sacramento, California. . 31 10 BILL SUKENIK, Aliso Water Management 11 Agency, Irvine, California 38 12 FRITZ STRADLING, El Toro Water District, Newport Beach, California 46 13 oOo 14 EXHIBITS 15 No. Description 16 1 Federal Register, Tuesday, 6 17 April 25, 1978, Part III 18 2 Federal Register, Friday, 7 June 2, 1978, Part VI 19 3 Two-page excerpt from Federal 7 20 Register, Volume 43, No. 110, Wednesday, June 7, 1978 21 4 Two-page document entitled 7 22 "Notice of Public Hearing" 23 5 Affidavit of Publication, The Arizona Republic 24 25 ------- -3A- 1 6 Affidavit of Publication, 8 Honolulu Star-Bulletin 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 Affidavit of Publication, 8 San Francisco Chronicle 5 Affidavit of Publication, 8 Affidavit of Publication, 8 Los Angeles Times Las Vegas Review-Journal 10 Two-page letter dated June 17 26, 1978 from Judith Kunofsky, Population and Growth Policy Specialist, to Mr. Alexander J. Greene, Director 11 15-page document entitled 17 "The Use of Population Projections by the Federal Government for Programs at the Local Level" 12 11-page document entitled 20 "Comments Regarding Proposed and Interim Regulations Implementing Clean Water Act of 1977" 13 Three-page letter dated 25 June 23, 1978 from J. Warren Nute to Alexander J. Greene 14 Three-page document entitled 44 "Statement of Aliso Water Management Agency" 15 Two-page document entitled 46 "Statement of Aliso Water Management Agency" oOo ------- -4- 1 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1978 10:00 O'CLOCK A.M. 2 oOo 3 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Good morning, ladies 4 and gentlemen. We will call this meeting to order. 5 This is a meeting called by the United 6 States Environmental Protection Agency to consider 7 regulations on grants for the construction of waste- 8 water treatment works. 9 With me on the panel today here are, on 10 my right, Mr. Bob Gervais, who is Chief of the 11 Program Support Branch, Water Division, EPA Region 12 IX; on my left, Don Anderson, Construction Grants 13 Coordinator of the Water Division, EPA Region IX. 14 This is one of a series of meetings and 15 conferences on the subject of revisions of regula- 16 tions for grants for construction of wastewater 17 treatment works under the Clean Water Act of 1977. 18 That act requires regulations to implement 19 amendments to Sections 201 (g), 201 (i), 202 (a), 20 203 (e) and 304 (d). 21 These regulations involve innovative and 22 alternative technologies, recreation on open space 23 uses, and EPA assistance on contracts. They also 24 deal with incentives to pretreatment of industrial 25 waste. ------- -5- 1 Regulations on this subject were 2 published on the 25th of April, 1978, Volume 43 of 3 the Federal Register. One part was published as 4 proposed rule making at Page 17690, one part as 5 interim final regulations at Page 17697, and state 6 management assistance grant program was implemented 7 with interim final regulations at Page 17716. 8 On the 2nd of June, 1978, technical amend- 9 ments to other regulations and 40 CFR, Page 35, 10 Subpart E on this subject were published in Volume 11 43 of the Federal Register at Page 24248. 12 The Agency intends to republish all of 13 the amendments as final rule making probably in 14 September of 1978. This meeting is primarily 15 concerned with the purpose of receiving comments 16 on the regulations published on the 25th of April, 17 1978. However, comments on the proposed technical 13 amendments that are offered here today will be 19 fully considered, 20 A number of conferences and meetings have 21 been held on this subject, including a conference 22 scheduled with the cooperation of several 23 environmental and special interest groups on the 9th 24 of June, 1978 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel here in 25 San Francisco. ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -6- Prior to publication of the regulations on the 25th of April, 1978, numerous meetings were held to solicit public input as described in that publication at 43 Federal Register 17690. Notice of this meeting was given in Volume 43 of the Federal Register at 24713 on the 7th of June, 1978'. Notice was also given by publication in the Arizona Republic published in Phoenix, Arizona, on the 29th of May, 3,978; in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in Honolulu, Hawaii, on the same day; and the Los Angeles Times in Los Angeles, California on the same day; in the San Francisco Chronicle in San Francisco, California, on the same day; and in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the same day. A copy of the Federal Register publication of 25 April, 1978 will be marked for the purposes of this record as Exhibit 1. (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 1, Federal Register, Tuesday, April 25, 1978, Part III, was incorporated into the record.) CHAIRMAN WALKER: A copy of the Federal Register publication of the 2nd of June, 1978 will, for the purposes of this record, be marked Exhibit 2. ------- -7- 1 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 2, Federal Register, 2 Friday, June 2, 1978, Part VI, was incorporated into 3 the record.) 4 CHAIRMAN WALKER: A copy of the publica- 5 tion in the Federal Register on the 7th of June, 6 1978 will be marked Exhibit 3. 7 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 3, two-page excerpt 8 from Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 110,Wednesday, 9 June 7, 1978, was incorporated into the 10 record.) 11 CHAIRMAN WALKER: A copy of the Notice 12 of Public Hearing that was published will be marked 13 Exhibit 4. 14 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No 4, two-page document 15 entitled "Notice of Public Hearing," was incorporated 16 into the record.) 17 CHAIRMAN WALKER: A copy of the Affidavit 18 of Publication in the Arizona Republic, No. 5, and 19 the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, No. 6, and the L.A. 20 Times, No. 7, and the San Francisco, Chronicle, No. 21 8, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, No. 9. 22 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 5, Affidavit of 23 Publication, The Arizona Republic, was incorporated 24 into the record.) 25 - - - ------- -8- 1 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 6, Affidavit of 2 Publication, Honolulu Star- Bulletin, was incorporated 3 into the record.) 4 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 7, Affidavit of 5 Publication, Los Angeles Times, was incorporated 6 into the record.) 7 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 8, Affidavit of 8 Publication, San Francisco Chronicle, was incorporated 9 into the record.) 10 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 9, Affidavit of 11 Publication, Las Vegas Review-Journal, was 12 incorporated into the record.) 13 14 CHAIRMAN WALKER: This meeting is being 15 recorded in shorthand by Mr. Richard S. Adams of 16 the firm of Smythe & Wilson. A copy of the 17 transcription will be available at the Public 18 Information Reference Unit, EPA Headquarters, Room 19 2922, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW, 20 Washington, B.C., between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 2i as soon it is transcribed and sent to them. 22 Anyone wishing a copy for their own 23 purposes or use should make individual arrangements 24 with the reporter here today. 25 This meeting is called for the purpose of ------- -9- 1 receiving public comment on the proposed regulations 2 This is not intended to be a debating forum. The 3 panel may be able to answer some questions, and 4 they in turn may wish to ask some questions of 5 the speakers for purposes of clarification. 6 Please feel free to make any comment or 7 ask any questions that you wish. However, answers 8 or responses will be included in the final rule 9 making, which is expected in September of 1978. We 10 may not be able to answer all of your questions 11 today. 12 We have a procedure for allotting the 13 time among the numerous people who wish to address 14 the panel. You may have seen a copy of that 15 procedure at the registration desk. We do ask the 16 people who come to register on these cards that are 17 available at the table at the entrance to the room. 18 If you wish to make a statement, please check the 19 box which says so, and hand it to the hearing clerk, 20 and a time will be put.on the card. We will rotate 21 the time among the various people who address us. 22 It will not be necessary to go into all 23 of the complications and nuances of our regular 24 procedure, because so far I only have three requests 25 of people to make presentations, and they will be ------- -10- 1 taken in the order in which they were received. 2 I must further announce that comments 3 on these proposed regulations of April 25th, 1978 4 that are not given to us today must be received 5 by the close of business, Friday the 30th of June, 6 at EPA headquarters in Washington. The address 7 there -- and you will probably have to send it by 8 Express Mail, if you have any second thoughts -- 9 is to Mr. Alexander J. Greene, Director, Grants 10 Administration Division, Attention: PM-216-P 11 "Construction Proposed," Environmental Protection 12 Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, B.C., 20460. 13 That address is in the publication in the Federal 14 Register if you did not memorize it as I gave it 15 to you. 16 We will ask that the people who speak 17 come forward and use the podium, and give us their 18 name, and if they are here in a representative 19 capacity, to tell us what it is. 20 Do you have any comments? 21 MR. ANDERSON: No. 22 MR, GERVAIS: No. 23 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. 24 We will now hear from the first speaker, 25 Judith Kunofsky. ------- -11 1 MS. KUNOFSKY: Thank you. My name is 2 Judith Kunofsky. I am the Growth Policy Specialist 3 on the staff of the National Sierra Club, and I am 4 here representing the Sierra Club today. 5 The Sierra Club is presenting statements 6 at a number of these hearings around the country 7 and submitting detailed written comments on a 8 large number of the proposed or interim regulations 9 and I will be dealing today only with a very brief 10 part of that, namely,, the proposals by the 11 Environmental Protection Agency on the preparation 12 and use of population projections. 13 For those of you who'might notohave.-paid ^ 14 much attention to this part of the regulations, 15 they are in very small print beginning on Page 17713, 16 and they continue to the middle of 17714. I have 17 additional copies of my statement here with me today, 18 and would be happy to answer any questions you 19 might have. 20 I would like to express the Sierra 21 Club's strong support for the portion of the 22 interim/final Construction Grants regulations deal- 23 ing with the preparation and use of population 24 projections. These proposals are well thought out 25 and a significant improvement over the current ad hoc ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 situation. Their implementation would provide substantial benefits in terms of environmental quality, fiscal responsibility, and the enhancement of various public policy goals of states and localities. We believe these guidelines should be implemented as written and as quickly as possible. Each Construction Grants project allows for construction of a certain amount of reserve capacity to ensure that a facility is not found to be too small shortly after its completion. An essential component of the determination of the allowable capacity is the population projection used. Congress has appropriated a fixed amount of money annually for the Construction Grants Program, and to the extent that reserve capacity is provided in excess a smaller proportion of the money can be used to treat current water pollution problems. The solving of current water quality problems is, of course, the basic Congressional and environmental mandate. The current situation,in which each community independently develops a population projection and for which EPA needs to develop an individual response involves lack of uniformity within and among states regarding how the projections ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -13- are prepared and the extent to which overprojecting is taking place. In particular, the lack of reasonable agreement between the total of state projections and a national population projection clearly indicates that federal action is needed to ensure greater consistency and hence more rational use of public funds. The current situation merely encourages competition among communities for the same pool of money, and can lead to serious overprojecting with the attendant environmental consequences. The second basic environmental benefit of controls on overprojecting arises from the nature of the secondary effects of the construction of a wastewater treatment facility. As you are well aware, these include the aggravation of air quality problems by the facilitation of growth in areas dependent on the automobile; the hastening of the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; the diversion of people and investment out of center cities where the environmental effects of growth are smaller; and in general the almost arbitrary subsidy of growth in some places to the detriment of others. Sewage treatment facilities, far more than zoning in many cases, influence the ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -14- timing and location of development within a region. Once the facility is in place, growth is likely because the capacity is available; moreover growth must be induced to pay the non-federal share of the costs. It is therefore in the public interest, and more specifically in EPA's, to minimize the secondary effects. One way to accomplish this is to more seriously control the excess capacity. Your proposed regulations satisfy this consideration in a way that provides for current needs, plans to accommodate unavoidable national population growth, but nevertheless minimizes adverse environmental impacts. EPA's proposed schematic process for producing local "201" projections is also sound I public policy on other grounds: It gives a role to states and communities by allowing them to disaggregate projections. This facilitates the incorporation of state and local goals and programs, thus enhancing the effectiveness of policy making at all levels. The provision of a hearing if a state requests use of a substantially higher projection is essential when such a proposal is controversial. The public must be able to be involved, as has been ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -15- too rarely true in the past. The proposals help clarify the political nature of the issues rather than continuing to cloud the issues by pretending they are simple calculations of nonpolitical technical staffs. While those staffs will continue to be indispensable, the growth policy debates will now be located where they truly belong, in the political process. It removes EPA from having to judge the reasonableness of each community's population projection independent of those of other communities. Presumably EPA will nevertheless exercise strong controls to mitigate any remaining secondary impacts of projects and assess consistency with other national environmental goals. Both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act in particular require such consistency. Appended to this letter is a copy of testimony presented on behalf of the Sierra Club before the Select Committee on Population in the House of Representatives earlier this month. The subject was the use of population projections. In it I describe a number of programs in which project tions are used including the Clean Water Act, and discuss controversies and inadequacies that have ------- -16- 1 been revealed. I outline a number of principles 2 we believe should guide national policy on the use 3 of population projections, and conclude that EPA's 4 proposals satisfy virtually all these principles. 5 In conclusion, I would like to reiterate 6 the Sierra Club's strong support for the regulations 7 regarding the preparation and use of population 8 projections. They were originally proposed in 9 early 1977, although in somewhat different form, 10 and have therefore be.en open to discussion for a 11 sufficiently long time. The regulations should be 12 implemented as quickly and as comprehensively 13 as possible. 14 . Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you, Miss 16 Kunofsky. Did you have a copy of your remarks 17 that you want submitted for the record? 18 MS.KUNOFSKY: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. 20 I have a copy headed on the letterhead 21 of the Sierra Club, "The Use of Population Projec- 22 tions by the Federal Government for Programs at the 23 Local Level" by Dr. Judith Kunofsky, and a state- 24 ment before Select Committee on Population, June 8, 25 1978. ------- -17- l Do you want that in first or second? 2 MS. KUNOFSKY: Second. 3 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Second. That will be 4 marked as Exhibit 11. 5 A statement in the format of a letter 6 dated June 26, 1978, addressed to Mr. Alexander 7 J. Greene, Director, and signed Judith Kunofsky, 8 will be marked Exhibit 10. 9 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 10, two-page letter 10 . dated June 26, 1978 from Judith Kunofsky, Population 11 and Growth Policy Specialist, to Mr. Alexander 12 J. Greene, Director, was incorporated into the 13 record. ) 14 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 11, 15-page document 15 entitled "The Use of Population Projections by 16 the Federal Government for Programs at the Local Level,1 17 was incorporated into the record.) 18 19 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. 20 MS. KUNOFSKY: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Steve Pardieck? 22 MR. PARDIECK: My name is Steve Pardieck. 23 I am representing the California State Water 24 Resources Control Board. Written comments from the 25 State Water Resources Control Board were submitted ------- -18- 1 to Alex Greene on June 16th. That was under a 2 cover letter by John Bryson, Chairman of the State 3 Water Kesources Control Board. 4 I have those same comments today to be 5 submitted into the record, and I also have 6 additional comments available for anyone else who 7 is interested. 8 My testimony this morning will consist 9 of a short statement briefly summarizing two of 10 the major issues that are of concern to the State. 11 The first issue is enforceable requirements 12 Now, the definition of the term "enforceable 13 requirements," the State Water Resources Control 14 Board basically supports a broader definition of 15 the term consistent with what we feel and what the 16 legislative history, what the record shows is the 17 intent of Congress. The State Board simply suggests 18 a change, an addition, using Senator Muskie's 19 language, to the definition. This basically 20 references specific sections of the Act such as 21 '201, 208, 301, 303, 402, 404, and so forth. 22 This addition, we feel, will help broaden 23 the definition and give the states a little more 24 flexibility in setting priorities. 25 The second issue concerns the state ------- -19- 1 management assistance grant and the regulations 2 on those, specifically in the preamble to the 3 regulations under the topic of continuity, funding 4 continuity. 5 In California where a one and a half per- 6 cent grant probably won't be sufficient to fund an 7 ongoing program, especially if OMB reduces their 8 appropriations down from five billion nationwide 9 authorization down to $4.2 billion, to California 10 this means a reduction of approximately $1.3 million 11 in program operating revenues. 12 The policy of EPA seems to require states 13 to provide a cash reserve contingency for this 14 funding continuity in the event the allotments 15 are not released in a timely manner. ' If the fund- 16 ing continuity problem is put on the state in this 17 manner it would reduce the delegated program to 18 some degree in the State of California. 19 In the written material the state also 20 makes comments on the priority list, the transition 21 problem from the half percent grant processing fee 22 to the two percent state management assistance grant, 23 innovative and alternative systems, user charges, 24 industrial cost recovery, and the cost effectiveness 25 guidelines. ------- -20- 1 We hope these comments will be helpful 2 and will be considered. If you have any questions, 3 feel free to contact myself. 4 Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Pardieck. 6 Do you have a copy that you wish to submit for 7 inclusion in the record? 8 MR. PARDIECK: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. 10 I have here a paper titled "Comments 11 Regarding Proposed and Interim Regulations 12 Implementing Clean Water Act of 1977,; California 13 State Water Resources Control Board." 14 This will be marked for the purposes of 15 this record as Exhibit 12. 16 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 12, 11-page document 17 entitled "Comments Regard- ing Proposed and Interim 18 Regulations ,• Implementing Clean Water Act of 1977," 19 was incorporated into the record.) 20 21 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Mr. J. Warren Nute? 22 MR. NUTE: I am J. Warren Nute, consulting 23 engineer, San Rafael, and also representing the ' . 1 24 Marin Audubon Society. 25 We have submitted comments on the ------- -21- 1 regulations to Mr. Greene, but I will read them 2 here and would like to have them in the record 3 here, too. 4 We have three main concerns, that in 5 reviewing the proposed regulations as published 6 in the Register 'April 25th, we are concerned 7 that the regulations as written will severely 8 restrict proposals for the reclamation and reuse 9 of wastewater through innovative and alternative 10 systems,and very few projects will be built unless 11 they are built without grant funds. 12 Our first concern is with the proposals 13 that grants for projects incorporating innovative 14 and alternative processes or reclamation and reuse 15 opportunities will not apply retroactively to lg projects on which facilities planning has already 17 begun, but will apply only where facilities planning 18 is initiated. a"fter September 30, 1978. As justifica- 19 tion for such limitation it is stated that it was 20 the intent of Congress not to delay ongoing projects. 2i It appears to us that under such 22 provisions there will be very few projects that 23 will qualify, since most municipalities and sewerage 24 agencies throughout the nation have already been 25 involved in facilities planning of one kind or ------- -22- 1 another over the years. Many ongoing projects 2 have proceeded through several steps of planning 3 and public hearings, but conclusions as to an 4 acceptable plan may not have been reached or the 5 project may have been delayed for financial or 6 other reasons. 7 During all stages of planning and design 8 of facilities, changes of direction as to types 9 of systems, alternatives or.'.technologies are not 10 unusual and, in fact, may be required^ Even after 11 construction is started there are provisions in all 12 contracts for making design changes, if necessary. 13 Depending on circumstances, a change in concept 14 of a project may not be the principal cause for 15 delays in ongoing projects. Under existing rules, 16 the engineer developing a facilities plan is 17 obligated to investigate alternative systems and 18 concepts. Also, in preparation of the EIS, 19 alternative systems must be analyzed. Even after 20 the facilities plans and EIS have been prepared and 21 submitted for public review and hearings, new 22 factors or concepts often come to light, making it 23 necessary to alter plans or change direction and 24 consider alternatives which may not have been 25 previously investigated. ------- -23- 1 Thus, to preclude consideration of 2 innovative alternative systems just because 3 facilities planning may have been initiated prior to 4 September 30, 1978 may well contribute to continuing 5 construction of costly conventional systems and 6 delay meeting the goals of the 1977 amendments for 7 many years into the future. 8 As a second concern, the regulations of 9 35.915 appear to preclude funding of reclamation and 10 reuse projects tha't are not needed for compliance 11 with "enforceable requirements." I think this was 12 brought out by the previous speaker. Since the 13 usual reclamation projects, at least in our area, 14 makes use of treated effluent, usually effluent 15 treated to the secondary level already meeting 16 water quality requirements of the NPDES permit, 17 these projects would not "satisfy enforceable v 18 requirements." 19 Very often, one of the most costly parts 20 of:~a project is the disposal of effluent after it 21 is treated. This is particularly the case where 22 a long pipeline and effluent pumping facilities 23 are required from the plant to the point of 24 disposal or where a deep water outfall is required. 25 Whereas a reclamation or reuse project may provide ------- -24- 1 environmental benefits or improvement in the quality 2 of the effluent, the NPDES permit may have been 3 written before the alternative project was 4 developed, and thus the enforceable requirements 5 of the permit may have been satisfied upstream from 6 the reclamation or reuse project. 7 A third concern is the imposition of 8 costly and excessively restrictive monitoring 9 programs on reclamation, reuse and alternative 10 systems by regulatory or health agencies. This 11 problem apparently has not been addressed in the 12 proposed regulations. Monitoring is a continuing 13 cost to the local operating agency and can become 14 so burdensome as to make it economically unfeasible 15 to consider reclamation, reuse and alternative 16 projects. 17 In summary, we are left with the 18 impression that the proposed rules contain very 19 little incentive for planning or developing 20 reclamation and reuse projects or innovative and 21 alternative systems. We hope that these issues 22 can be clarified so that the intent of Congress to 23 encourage systems that will reduce the cost of 24 wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and 25 provide means for beneficial reuse of this valuable ------- -25- 1 resource will become feasible at an early date. 2 There is one other comment. The feeling 3 remains that the rules and regulations have become 4 so voluminous and formidable that very few 5 individuals or agencies will attempt to develop 6 projects to meet the objectives of the 1977 amend- 7 ments. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Nute. 10 May we have a copy for the record? 11 MR. NUTE: Yes. 12 CHAIRMAN WALKER: I think Mr. Anderson 13 had a question. 14 I will announce first that this will be 15 marked Exhibit 13. 16 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 13, three-page letter 17 dated June 23, 1978 from J. Warren Nute to Alexander 18 J. Greene, was incorporated into the record.) 19 20 MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Nute, I may be able 21 to relieve your concerns somewhat, at least on the 22 first point you made regarding the retroactivity, 23 perhaps, of the provisions for innotative and 24 alternative technology. 25 In the preamble to the first portion of the ------- -26- 1 April 25th proposed rules on Page 17691, there is 2 a discussion of a proposal to provide supplemental 3 ten percent grants to projects that are awarded a 4 Step 2, Step 3, or combined Step 2 or 3 grant, 5 after December 27th, 1977. They can be awarded 6 a 75 percent grant at this time and then a ten per- 7 cent supplemental grant can be awarded when fiscal 8 year '79 funds are available. 9 The proposed implementation of this would 10 be in Paragraph 35.908 (b) (3} on Page.17694. 11 MR. NUTE: I might have missed that. On 12 the other hand, on there there are several places 13 where it says facilities planning initiated after 14 September, 1978, and it will not be retroactive. 15 I don't know why they don't clear that up. 16 MR. ANDERSON: I believe the intent was 17 that all facilities planning initiated after 18 September 30th, '78 must give this consideration 19 to innovative alternative'technologies, that projects 20 that are in the facilities planning stage or even 21 design stage at the present time, if they qualify 22 under the guidelines, would be eligible for the 23 85 percent grant. 24 MR. NUTE: That's great, but it certainly 25 is not clear. ------- -27- 1 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Your problems are noted 2 for the record. When the record is reviewed 3 possibly -- I cannot make a promise -- but possibly 4 the matter will be cleared up. 5 MR. NUTE: Thank you. 6 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. 7 Aaron Craig. 8 MR. CRAIG: I am probably sitting in the * 9 wrong pew today. I belong in Region X, but I was 10 doing some other business and would like to take 11 this opportunity to ask a few questions instead 12 of submitting statements. I haven't studied what 13 you have here. 14 CHAIRMAN WALKER: We will be glad to 15 receive your comments. This is Region IX, but the 16 comments are all part of the same national record; 17 they will all go to the same place. 13 MR. CRAIG: Thank you. 19 We have a rather unique situation up 20 there, the town of Plains, Montana. It has a 2i population of about 1500. They applied for a grant 22 for a sewage system "X" number of years ago and is 23 in the process in' Denver, I understand. 24 In the meantime -- also, I might make 25 clear that I am not a member of the City Council, but ------- -28- 1 I am here representing them. I am , Treasurer of 2 the Sanders County Sportsman Association. With 3 both positions I have tried to get an EIR report 4 on this job up there as to what's happening. So 5 far I haven't been able to do this. 6 I have written the engineers, contacted 7 the City Council and so forth. For some reason 8 or another they're not granting us one. 9 Another problem that we have is that the 10 proposed site of the new treatment plant is going with 11 ih' 200 feet of the old riverbed and 500 feet off 12 the present river. The Montana Fish and Game has 13 recommended that they find another location of this 14 plant, but I understand through the Sierra Club 15 and through the Montana Wilderness that they are 15 not entertaining thoughts of the Fish and Game. 17 I would like to:know why this is, because lg they need the plant, and I would like to see them 19 get it in, put it in right so they don't pollute 20 our river. 2i I haven't been able to come up with any 22 answers anywhere up there, including Denver. I 23 thought the job — the size that they are talking 24 about is half a million dollars — had to have an 25 EIR report. ------- -29- 1 So, being up in the remote area takes us 2 about three hours to get to an airport, so we are 3 kind of isolated up there. If the gentlemen here 4 or someone can give us the information on that I 5 think we will all appreciate it. 6 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you, sir. I do 7 not think the people at the panel here can help 8 you because we are not familiar with your problems 9 in Montana; there may be people here who can. 10 I do recall that there was a short subject 11 on CBS 60 Minutes at one time about some other 12 community that seemed to have the same kind of 13 problems you did. My impression was that somehow 14 or other there was a communications problem with 15 that city — but that isn't the way CBS put it — 16 (Laughter) 17 MR. CRAIG: I think this is very important 18 according to the Montana Wilderness Association and 19 Mr. Kundsen, Fish and Game, which the biologists 20 is having this treatment plant, they want it 21 relocated, and there is places for it, but the 22 city says it's going to cost us a lot of money to 23 relocate, which they're probably talking about 24 15 or $20,000. 25 I would like to see it installed, I'd like ------- -30- 1 to have it in right. But we don't know'Where >to go. 2 CHAIRMAN WALKER: I hope your problem 3 can be solved, but I think one of the things you 4 have to realize is that the agency leaving decisions 5 in the hands of local agencies, sometimes there 6 are results that everybody does not agree with. 7 That may be your problem. I do not know. 8 Mr. GerVais? 9 MR. GERVAIS:: I just wanted to add that 10 I would be glad to talk to him afterwards. I could 11 give you some ideas on how to approach what appears 12 to be a recalcitrant region — 13 MR. CRAIG: I would appreciate that. 14 MR. GERVAIS: But I do not think it is 15 of general interest here. 16 MR. CRAIG: I mentioned this — I just 17 came in the building, had just Heard of the meeting. 18 I want to thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Evidently you were in 20 luck. Thank you, sir. 21 I have no more cards before me of people • 22 who had requested to make a statement. 23 Is there anyone here who checked the box 24 and said they wanted to make a statement but I have 25 not heard from them? ------- -31- 1 Is there anyone here who has changed 2 their mind and would like to make a statement? 3 If you would please come forward, sir, 4 and tell us your name. 5 MR. GRIBKOFP: My name is George Gribkoff, 6 and I am an engineer for Raymond Vail and 7 Associates in Sacramento. 8 I would like to support Mr. Nute's 9 testimony on innovative systems on wastewater 10 reclamation, and particularly his concern with the 11 regulations as written and the voluminous regulations. 12 We also have concerns and we have had experience 13 with state and local agencies as well as the 14 federal agencies, that it is pretty hard to get 15 an innovative system going. 16 I would also like to say that I have 17 attended several EPA conferences on alternative 18 and innovative systems, and they seem to be heading 19 in the right direction in that they are encouraging 20 innovative systems, they have recognized the 21 fallacy of big conventional regional systems in 22 many places, and have openly admitted it. 23 The other concern, and I am really 24 concerned about the regulations that are coming 25 out on monitoring in the proposals. ------- -32- 1 As you know, these toxic analyses cost 2 a great deal of money. I have had a great deal of 3 experience, being a chemist as well as an engineer, 4 in monitoring programs. My experience has been 5 that everybody overreacts. They want data. They 6 don't know why they want data, but they want data. 7 This I heard from EPA and I have heard - 8 it from the state — everybody's screaming for 9 data. They want computers, they want data. What 10 do they do with it? What does it mean? 11 I have seen plants oversample themselves. 12 They take bicarbonates, sulphates, chlorides, 13 whatever they feel like, day after day. When you 14 ask the chemist, "Why are you doing it," he says, 15 "I don't know. They've been doing it years before." 16 So I think that as far as monitoring, it 17 has to be very well thought out, and as soon as 18 the background is established I see no reason for 19 all this iodiotic sampling -- I mean,weeks after 20 weeks of needless expense on the people, the tax- 21 payers as well as the local entities. 22 That is all I have to say. 23 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Gribkoff. 24 Mr. Nute? Please come forward and use 25 the microphone. ------- -33- 1 MR. NUTE: I appreciate the comments on 2 this monitoring again now. We are finding that 3 since Jarvis-Gann that this is one of the pieces 4 of fat that's going to have to be somehow taken 5 out of the program. Most of our, many of our 6 clients, districts, sewage agencies, are going to, 7 talking about, asking for relief from this excessive 8 monitoring program. 9 MR. ANDERSON: Is this specific requirement 10 in regard to innovative projects or -- 11 MR. NUTE: No, it is a present requirement, 12 requirements for discharge into a stream or ocean 13 or bay. It's been just so burdensome,the costs -- 14 it's one of the things that should really be looked 15 at. 16 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you, sir. Is 17 there anyone else who has decided to make a state- 18 ment? 19 We have come to that time of the morning 20 where evidently we have heard from the public. Do 21 you have any more cards? t 22 This meeting then will recess now until 23 7:30 tonight at this same place. It will not be 24 necessary to repeat this evening any comments that 25 were made here this morning. It is all part of the ------- -34- 1 same record; it will be part of one continuous 2 record as far as Region IX is concerned, and Region 3 IX1 s record will be accumulated with a record from 4 all of the other hearings throughout the country. 5 I thank all of you for coming. We 6 appreciate your attendance and your courtesy. 7 Have a good day. 8 (Whereupon, the hearing recessed at 11:00 9 o'clock a.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, June 10 28, 1978 at 7:30 o'clock p.m.) 11 I oOo 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- -35- 1 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1978 7:30 O'CLOCK P.M. 2 oOo 3 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Good evening. We will 4 open this evening's session of this public hearing. 5 This is a hearing called by the United 6 States Environmental Protection Agency to consider 7 regulations for grants for construction of waste- 8 water treatment works. 9 On the panel here this evening, on my 10 right is Mr. Bob Gervais, Chief of the Program II Support Branch, Water Division, of EPA, Region IX; 12 on ray left is Donald Anderson, Construction Grants 13 Coordinator of the Water Division, EPA, Region IX. 14 This is one of a series of meetings and 15 conferences on the subject of revisions of the 16 regulations for grants for construction of waste- - 17 water treatment plants under the Clean Water Act of 18 1977. That Act required regulations to implement 19 amendments to the Act. Such regulations were 20 proposed on the 25th of April, 1978 in the Federal 21 Register. 22 On the 2nd of June, 1978, technical 23 amendments to other regulations in the wastewat6r. 24 construction grants program were promulgated, and it \ 25 is the agency intention to republish all of these ------- -36- 1 amendments as final rule making about September of 2 1978. 3 This meeting is primarily concerned with 4 receiving comments on the regulations published 5 on the 25th of April, 1978. However, comments on 6 the proposed technical amendments that are offered 7 will be considered. 8 A number of conferences and meetings have 9 been held on this subject including a conference 10 scheduled here in San Francisco at the Sheraton 11 Palace Hotel on the 9th of June of 1978. All of 12 this information will be considered in the final 13 rule making process. 14 Notice of this meeting was given in 15 the Federal Register publication on the 7th of June, 16 1978. 17 A notice was also given by publication 18 on the 29th of May, 1978 in the Arizona Republic, 19 published in Phoenix, Arizona; Honolulu Star-rBulletin, 20 published in Honolulu; the Los Angeles Times, 21 published in Los Angeles; the San.Francisco 22 .Chronicle, published in this city of San Francisco; 23 the Las Vegas Review-Journal, published in Las Vegas. 24 Certain exhibits were received at the 25 morning session of this hearing that was convened ------- -37- 1 at 10:30 this morning; and they will not be 2 repeated here. 3 I will add that a copy of the transcript 4 that is being made tonight will be made ultimately 5 available for public inspection in the Public 6 Information Reference Unit, EPA Headquarters. Any- 7 one who has a need for a copy of their own prior to 8 the availability of that should make individual 9 arrangements with the reporter. 10 This hearing is not called as an adversary 11 hearing. We are not here to debate the merits of 12 the proposed regulations. We are here to receive 13 public input from people who. have something to say 14 about them. For this purpose we ask that people 15 come forward,use the microphone at the podium, give 16 us their name and, if they are appearing here in a 17 representative capacity, to tell us that as well. 18 Any questions or comments that you may; 19 have to make will be received and carefully 20 considered. They may or may not be responded to this 21 evening. We do not present ourselves as the people 22 who have all of the answers. 23 The comment period for these proposed 24 regulations closes at the close of business the 30th 25 of June -- that is Friday of this week, the day ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -38- after tomorrow -- and comments should be sent to Mr. Alexander J. Greene, Director, Grants Administration Division, Attention: PM-216-P, EPA, 401 M Street,SW, Washington, D.C. This zip code is 20460. That means that if you have second thoughts after the hearing tonight you will have to use Express Mail to get it there on time. We have a procedure for spreading around the pleasure of commenting to the panel, but since I only have two cards here tonight, I will not need to go into that procedure. I will first then call upon Mr. Bill Sukenik. MR. SUKENIK: Gentlemen, I have copies of two positions. CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. MR. SUKENIK: My name is Bill Sukenik. I represent the Aliso Water Management Agency.in Irvine, California. The Aliso Water Management Agency, which I will refer to as AWMA from here on out, requests that the draft regulations on Section 35.905-8 entitled Industrial User, be amended to add the following language to Subdivision (a): ------- -39- 1 "Where flows from individual discharges 2 are processed through a privately owned treatment 3 works before the flows reach a publicly owned treat- 4 ment works, and where the flows from such privately 5 owned treatment works exceed 25,000 gallons per 6 day of sanitary waste, such privately owned treat- 7 ment works shall not for the purpose of these 8 regulations be defined as an industrial user." 9 The reason for this request is that AWMA 10 has been advised by the staff of the California 11 State Water Resources Control Board that under 12 Section 35.905-8 defining industrial user, the 13 El Toro Water District, a member agency of AWMA, 14 would be considered an industrial user. The reason 15 for this staff interpretation is that presently 16 the flows from the El Toro Water District are 17 treated by the Laguna Hills Sanitation, Inc., 18 formerly Rossmoor • Sanitation, Inc., a private 19 corporation. However, all the flows into said 20 treatment works are from domestic users, plus a 21 minor portion of small commercial users. This 22 matter was previously the subject of concern by the 23 State Water Resources Control Board in September 24 of 1974. At that time the same factual condition 25 existed and the State Water Resources Control ------- -40- 1 Board did determine that the "Rossmoor portion of 2 the service area of Aliso Water Management Agency 3 was Grant Eligible.V 4 Factually, the El Toro Water District 5 consists almost exclusively of residences, both 6 single family residences and multiple family 7 residences located within the boundaries of the 8 Rossmoor Leisure World. The treatment plant 9 providing wastewater treatment within the El Toro 10 Water District service area is operated by the 11 Laguna Hills Sanitation, Inc., a privately owned 12 treatment plant, regulated by the State Public 13 Utilities Commission. The Commission regulates 14 its fees and its profits. The El Toro Water 15 District has already participated with Grant 16 Eligibility in the construction of the AWMA ocean 17 outfall and is participating in the design, again 18 with Grant Eligibility, of regional sludge treatment 19 works. It would be unfair and inequitable at this 20 time to consider discharges from the privately 21 owned Laguna Hills plant with flows in excess of 22 25,000 gallons per day of sanitary waste, as an 23 industrial user and subject to industrial cost 24 recovery requirements. Any additional expenses 25 are passed on to the actual users of the system, ------- -41- 1 i.e., the individual homeowners. They are tax- 2 payers and should be entitled to all the benefits 3 of the federally funded program, as other property 4 owners. 5 AWMA is not proposing that any privately 6 owned facilities be constructed. Any facilities 7 requested by AWMA to be government funded will be 8 in public ownership. All additional facilities 9 which are needed to transmit the effluent to the 10 ocean outfall and treat waste activated sludge will H be in public ownership. 12 We believe that the proposed amendment 13 to Section 35.905-8 would make it clear that a 14 privately owned treatment works with flows in 15 excess of 25,000 gallons per day of sanitary waste, 15 and serving residential/small commercial users 17 exclusively, would not be termed an industrial 18 user,. Your consideration >6f this ^request Iwbuld be 19 greatly appreciated. It is suggested that counsel 20 for the EPA could contact our counsel in the event 2i that revisions to the proposed language are 22 required. 23 That completes our statement. 24 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. Do you have 25 a question? ------- -42- 1 MR. GERVAIS: Who is your counsel? 2 MR. SUKENIK: Clayton Parker of Alexander 3 Bowie Law Corporation, Newport Beach. 4 MR. GERVAIS: Parker? 5 MR. SUKENIK: Clayton Parker. 6 MR. GERVAIS: I think there is going to 7 be some reevaluation of that determination by the 8 State Board. 9 MR. SUKEN.IK: I know there have been some 10 condescending opinions, EPA versus State Board, 11 and even some non-legal staff within the State 12 Board. But we are really concerned. We have had 13 the Chairman of the Board of Directors of El. Toro 14 Water District put a morata'riiuin on any funds to be 15 placed in the AWMA budget until this is concluded. 16 I also have.-a second position. 17 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Excuse me. I have a 18 questionr about Statement 1. 19 The language.that you have in the second 20 paragraph on the first page does not have anything 21 to say about its serving residenti'a'l:/sriialJ..:.coiQnrej:.dial 22 users exclusively. 23 Is that the fact, and if that condition 24 were put in this language, would that fill your 25 need? ------- -43- 1 MR. SUKENIK: It would, yes. This was 2 written by Clayton Parker, and he used individual 3 discharges, I guess, because of the regulations also 4 addressing the individual systems as far as 5 commercial users paying a share. 6 CHAIRMAN WALKER: I can envision a 7 situation where you might have a number of 8 individual discharges from industrial users in an 9 industrial park where you might have highly toxic 10 materials going in to the treatment plant. In such 11 a case, as a matter of policy, this would not be 12 very desirable. If all of them were residential it 13 would probably be a very desirable result. If we 14 have a mix of residential and commercial users, 15 we have a problem about who the commercial users 16 are and what are they putting in'. If it really is 17 what most people understand sanitary waste to be, 18 I guess we would not have a problem. But if you 19 had a photo lab, processing lab, or a plating shop '20 or something like that, you could have a very serious 21 problem. 22 MR. SUKENIK: Yes, the wording, agreed, 23 is rough, and in no way verbatim do we want this 24 placed without very clear thought. 25 CHAIRMAN WALKER: I understand. ------- -44- 1 I will mark your first statement as 2 Exhibit 14 for the purposes of this record. 3 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 14, three-page document 4 entitled "Statement of Aliso Water Management 5 Agency," was incorporated into the record.) 6 7 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Please continue. 8 MR. SUKENIK: The Aliso Water Management 9 Agency, which, again, I will refer to as AWMA, 10 requests that the draft regulations on Section 11 35.935-13 entitled Submission and Approval of 12 User Charge Systems, be amended to delete the follow- 13 ing statements from Subdivision (b): 14 "The grantee must obtain approval of 15 its user charge system before July 1, 1979. The 16 Regional Administrator shall not make any payments 17 on these grants, may terminate or annul these 18 grants, and shall not award any new Step 3 grants 19 to the same grantee after June 30, 1978, if the 20 user charge system has not been approved." 21 In addition, the AWMA requests that the 22 statement below contained under Subdivision (d) of 23 the aforementioned section also be deleted. 24 "The user charge system must be approved 25 by the Regionall Administrator prior to grant award." ------- -45- 1 Requiring an approved user charge system 2 prior to award of a Step 3 grant is premature. It 3 is more logical to prepare the user charge system 4 in final form when actual construction costs and 5 detailed operation and maintenance costs are 6 available instead of utilizing the engineers' 7 estimates prepared during the early design period. 8 The availability of these accurate costs only 9 occurs after the Step 3 grant and construction 10 contract have been awarded and the final operations 11 and maintenance manual has been prepared. 12 Unnecessary dollars will be expended 13 to revise the approved user charge system when the 14 "true" costs are available. In addition, the 15 regulatory agency will most likely conduct another 16 review once the system is revised. These 17 redundancies are unwarranted and costly. 18 We recommend that all Step 3 grants after 19 June 30, 1979 be subject to the regulations 20 promulgated on February 11, 1974 with regard to s 21 submission and approval of user charge systems. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you. I will mark 24 the second statement as Exhibit 15 for the 25 purposes of this record. ------- -46- 1 (Whereupon, Hearing Exhibit No. 15, two-page document 2 entitled "Statement of Aliso Water Management 3 Agency," was incorporated into the record.) 4 5 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Mr. Fritz Stradling? 6 MR. STRADLING: Mr. Chairman and members 7 of the Board, toy name is Fritz Stradling. I am 8 an attorney for the El Toro Water District, which 9 is a member of the AWMA Agency. 10 We just learned of this proposed amendment 11 as it might affect the El Toro Water District, and 12 we are here in support of the AWMA position that 13 was just given to you by Mr. Sukenik. 14 Mr. Sukenik has correctly stated that 15 this will work a severe hardship on the El Toro > 16 Water District. We have been in this AWMA program 17 for five or six years and have expended a 18 considerable amount of money and incurred expenses 19 by the issuance of bonds to pay our share of the 20 program. 2i If this provision has the effect that 22 the state thinks it may have, we could lose 23 substantial money, approximately $4 million. 24 The district, as was pointed out, is a 25 residential, 90 percent developed residential with ------- -47- 1 some commercial in it. I do not think there are 2 any industrial plants in the district itself that 3 would be of any substantial nature. 4 The amendments that were suggested by 5 the Hearing Board would be agreeable to the El Toro 6 Water District. I think that would resolve the 7 question if this amendment is also given. 8 The result of this, however, if we had 9 to pay the share of the costs, the grant costs as 10 an industrial user, these monies would be passed 11 on to the Laguna Hills Sanitation Company. That 12 company would then go to the Public Utilities 13 Commission and put that additional cost in the 14 rates so that we would have a situation in the 15 district, within the AWMA Agency, where people living 16 across the street would be paying this cost and 17 on the other side of the street if they were in 18 another district, they were handling their own 19 processing, would not be paying the cost. It would 20 be discriminating between residents in the same 21 regional programs. So we believe that this provision 22 should be amended. 23 CHAIRMAN WALKER: Thank you, sir. 24 I now have no more cards before me of 25 people who have requested an opportunity to address ------- -48- 1 the panel. Is there anyone who has registered but 2 whose card has been mislaid? Is anyone here who 3 has changed his or her mind and wishes to speak 4 on the subject? 5 It then appears that we have reached 6 that time of the hearing where we will close this 7 part of the hearing subject to the submission ol 8 written comments before the close of business on 9 June 30th at the address given in the notice. If 10 you have need of it, we will give you that address 11 again 12 We thank you kindly for your courtesy and 13 your attention, and wish you a good journey home. 14 Good night. 15 (Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at the 16 hour of 8:00 o'clock p.m.) 17 oOo 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -49- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) o ss. City and County of San Francisco ) I, RICHARD S. ADAMS, hereby certify that the proceedings in the Public Hearing on Construction Grants Regulations, held at the offices of Region IX, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 94105, on June 28, 1978, were taken down in shorthand by me, a Qualified Shorthand Reporter and a disinterested person, at the time and place therein stated, and that the proceed- ings were thereafter reduced to typewriting under my supervision and direction. I further certify that I am n6t of counsel or attorney for either or any of the parties to the said proceedings, nor in any way interested in the event of this cause, and that I am not related to any of the parties thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office this 1st day of July, 1978. My C:runiMk,n fc£. . SSliAL . ADAMS • VUiFORNSA . ~:. IM 5.y 17, 1979 tfOlTARY PUBLIC in and for .the County of. Marin, State of California ------- |