REGION IX

                     215 Fremont Street

               San Francisco,  California 94105

                       PUBLIC HEARING


                    Conference Rooms  A-D

                       June 28,  1978
                         10:00 a. m.
                          7:30 p. m.
Reported by:

                     SMYTHE & WILSON
                   681 MARKET STREET. SUITE IOSS
                SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 64105

                         AREA CODE



 2                    ,   HEARING PANEL                 21157


 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


14                         	oOo	













 i                        INDEX

 2     SPEAKERS                                        Page

 3          JUDITH KUNOFSKY,  Sierra Club,
                San Francisco,  California ./	11
           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
           BILL SUKENIK,  Aliso  Water Management
11               Agency,  Irvine, California	38

12          FRITZ STRADLING,  El  Toro Water District,
                Newport  Beach,  California 	 46
      No.       Description
      1       Federal Register,  Tuesday,                6
17            April 25,  1978,  Part III

18     2       Federal Register,  Friday,                 7
             June 2,  1978,  Part VI
      3       Two-page excerpt from Federal             7
20            Register,  Volume 43, No. 110,
             Wednesday,  June  7, 1978
      4       Two-page document  entitled                7
22            "Notice of  Public  Hearing"

23     5       Affidavit  of Publication,
             The Arizona Republic



 1    6      Affidavit of Publication,                 8
             Honolulu Star-Bulletin



















     8      Affidavit of Publication,                 8
            San Francisco Chronicle
            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"


 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.

 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.


























          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.


 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                         - - -


 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

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


 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


 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.

 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

























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


          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

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
          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


























   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


             EPA's proposed schematic process for

   producing local "201" projections is also sound
   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

























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

 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.


 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

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

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

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.


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

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

 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

 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.


 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

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

 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


 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.)

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

 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.

 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


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.

 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

 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?


 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.


 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.


 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?
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


 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	
















 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

 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

  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


























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


          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):

 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


 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,

 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?

 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?

 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.


 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.)

 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."


 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
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.


 1                             (Whereupon,  Hearing Exhibit
                               No.  15,  two-page document
 2                              entitled "Statement of
                               Aliso Water Management
 3                              Agency," was incorporated
                               into the record.)

 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

 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

 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	


























       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£. .

. ~:. IM

5.y 17, 1979
tfOlTARY PUBLIC in and for .the
County of. Marin,
State of California