Working for Clean Water
An Information Program for Advisory Groups
Facility Planning
in the Construction
Grants Program
Why is the community conducting a wastewatcr study?
Is there really a water quality problem?
Are the existing facilities adequate?
What unique resources should be protected?
Are the projections for future growth realistic
and within community desires?
Are the full range of treatment alternatives
being considered?
Which alternatives can the community afford?
Citizen Handbook
-------
This program was prepared by
The Pennsylvania State University
Institute of State & Regional
Affairs
Middletown, PA 17057
Dr. Charles A. Cole
Project Director
Dr. E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Project Co-Director
Prof. Loma Chr. Stoltzfus
Editor
This unit was prepared by
Charles A. Cole and E. Drannon
Buskirk, Jr.
Advisory Team for the Project
David Elkinton, State of West
Virginia
Steve Frishman, private citizen
Michele Frome, private citizen
John Hammond, private citizen
Joan Jurancich, State of California
Richard Hetherington, EPA
Region 10
Rosemary Henderson, EPA
Region 6
George Hoessel, EPA Region 3
George Neias, EPA Region 5
Ray Pfortner, EPA Region 2
Paul Pinault, EPA Region 1
Earlene Wilson, EPA Region 7
Dan Burrows, EPA Headquarters
Ben Gryctko, EPA Headquarters
Robert Hardaker, EPA
Headquarters
Charles Kauffinan, EPA
Headquarters
Steve Maier, EPA Headquarters
EPA Project Officer
Barry H. Jordan
Office of Water Programs
Operations
Acknowledgements
Typists:
Ann Kirsch, Jan Russ, Tess
Startoni
Student Assistants:
Fran Costanzi, Kathy DeBatt,
Michael Lapano, Mike Moulds,
Terry Switzer
Illustrator.
Charles Speers
Graphics support was provided by
the Office of Public Awareness,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Photographs were provided by
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, USDA - Soil Conservation
Service, and Penna. Department of
Environmental Resources.
-------
Facility Planning in the
Construction Grants Program
Facility Planning and
Construction Grants
Let's face it. A sewage plant lacks the
appeal of a new park or public library.
Most people have little interest in sewage
until it poses a threat to the community or
family. This concern may be a health
problem, a public nuisance, or even higher
taxes.
Construction Grants Process:
A Summary
Why does a community take the steps to
build or improve sewage treatment
facilities? There are several possible
reasons:
Voluntary community action to develop
or improve public facilities
Voluntary action to remove a public
nuisance or community problem
Compliance with local or other public
health codes
Compliance with federal pollution control
regulations or state water quality
standards
Compliance with a court order.
While local desires or public health
considerations may be factors, most
communities have to deal with sewage
treatment for two reasons: The Federal
Clean Water Act of 1977, and State Water
Quality Standards.
Through the Clean Water Act, Congress
and the President have established a
national goal of waters suitable for fishing
and swimming. The Act requires at least
secondary treatment for all publicly-owned
sewage systems (Secondary treatment
generally removes 85 percent of BOD and
suspended solids). BOD, called biochemical
oxygen demand, and suspended solids are
measures of pollution strength.
Enforcement of these regulations is ensured
through the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) that requires
permits for all wastewater discharges.
States determine how much pollution
can enter a water body by establishing
water quality standards. These standards
are based on the potential uses of the
water body. In order to meet and maintain
these standards, limitations are placed on
industrial and municipal'discharges. These
limitations often determine the type of
treatment facilities which must be built
and the level of treatment which must be
achieved.
The events or conditions which cause a
community to look at its wastewater
problems go a long way toward
determining the outcome. For this
reason, the advisory group should
understand from the outset why the
community is developing a wastewater
facility plan.
The Grants Process
No matter what initiates the planning,
most communities want a federal grant to
help pay for new or upgraded treatment
facilities. These grants are available
through the Construction Grants Program.
Three main governmental bodies are
involved in the construction grants process.
They are the local agency, the state
agency, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
-------
Recognition of
treatment need
Completion time
11/2 years
1/2 year
1 year
The facility planning process
takes two to ten years. The
average is about five years.
How does a community get a grant?
First comes the preapplication stage. The
municipality seeks to have its project
placed on the state "priority list," which is
a statewide ranking of proposed projects in
order of their importance. In ranking the
projects the state follows an approved
procedure involving several factors,
including:
Severity of the pollution problems
Number of people affected
Need to preserve high-quality water
bodies
National priorities
Availability of federal grants and local
funds.
If the state agency determines that the
project deserves high priority and the EPA
approves, the community becomes eligible
for federal funding. The next job for most
municipalities is to select a qualified
engineering-planning consultant, if one is
not already involved.
Choosing a qualified consultant is a
crucial decision since the firm will conduct
most of the planning. In addition to
technical competence, the consultant
should be able to demonstrate flexibility,
and show sensitivity for local concerns.
The municipality and consultant meet
informally with state and EPA officials in
a preapplication conference to review
requirements for submitting a grant
application. The municipality and
consultant then prepare a plan of study
describing the nature of pollution
problems, the study tasks, and costs for
conducting this work. The community next
submits a plan of study along with an
application for a Step 1 planning grant to
the state and the EPA. The application
contains several items, including:
An explanation of how the community
will finance the local share of the project
cost
Name of an authorized representative to
act on behalf of the municipality.
The state and EPA both review the plan of
study and the application. Upon approval,
the EPA awards a Step 1 grant, which
covers 75 percent of the planning cost. The
town now enters the facility planning stage
and becomes a grantee.
Planning Stage
Good planning of wastewater treatment
facilities means more than just technical
expertise. It means taking into account
community characteristics, social values,
and environmental concerns. People must
work together to incorporate these from
the beginning.
-------
Wastewater
facility
project
(engineering-planning
A. consultant
The facility plan is an actual document
that is submitted to the EPA. Its objective
is to develop a cost-effective solution to the
pollution control problem. It must balance
the desired degree of pollution control
against economic, social, and
environmental costs. The facility plan has
to provide answers to many questions.
Some of the more important ones are:
Does the facility plan accurately define
and verify the extent of the problem?
How does the project fit into the water
quality management plans for the region
or area (i.e., 208 planning)?
Does the project call for a reasonable
sewage collecting and treatment reserve, or
is there an excess capacity?
How will the reserve capacity affect
community growth?
What are the project's impacts on the
environment?
What is the plan for mitigating adverse
environmental impacts?
Is the project cost-effective? That is, will
it achieve the needed degree of pollution
control at the least cost in money and
adverse environmental effects?
How will the project be financed? What
will be the financial impact on the
community and individual households?
What are the plans for efficient operation
and management of the system?
Public Participation
Public involvement early in the project,
especially in the planning stage, is the best
way of dealing with these questions, and,
ultimately, gaining public support for
financing any new or rehabilitated
facilities.
Public participation makes good sense for
many reasons:
Incorporating public values
Resulting in better facility plans
Ensuring reasonable costs
Bringing added community benefits
Resolving controversies
Gathering public support.
Specific public participation requirements
for facility planning are covered later in
this handbook.
Consultant
-------
Construction Stage
Step
grant
Design stage
Design Stage
When the facility plan is completed it is
sent to the state for approval. It is then
submitted to the EPA for a Step 2 grant
for design of the facility. The EPA reviews
the facility plan to determine, among other
things, whether significant adverse
environmental impacts will result from the
project. If the EPA determines that such
impacts exist, the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 must be prepared. If no
significant impacts will result, the EPA
will approve the facility plan. A Step 2
design grant is then awarded.
When the Step 2 grant is awarded the
consultant prepares detailed engineering
plans and specifications. The community
also has several tasks. It must establish
user charges a system of fees to pay for
the operation and management costs of the
facility. It must prepare plans for the
operation of the facility, including, if
necessary, industrial pretreatment of
wastewater. When these plans are
complete the grantee submits them to the
state and the EPA for review.
If the designs and specifications receive
state and EPA approval, the grantee now
enters the construction stage. A Step 3
federal grant will often pay 75 percent of
the eligible construction costs of the project
(85 percent if the project qualifies as an
innovative or alternative approach). States
provide additional grant assistance for
planning, design, and construction. The
community then advertises for bids for the
construction work in accordance with local
ordinances, state laws, and EPA
regulations. If the successful bidder's
qualifications meet EPA requirements,
the contract is awarded.
The construction begins on the facility.
While construction continues a manual for
the operation and management of the
facility is prepared. When construction is
completed the state and the EPA conduct
final inspections. The EPA then makes a
final audit, and pays only its share of the
eligible costs.
Finally comes the operation and
management of the facility. This is
possibly the most difficult part of the
project and is often overlooked. Every
measure should be taken to be sure that
the community can live with whatever
facilities are built. Once the construction is
completed, grant assistance ends. The
community must pay 100 percent of all
operation and management costs.
These three stages from the beginning
of Step 1 to the end of construction can
require seven years or more. Facility
planning alone takes 17 to 36 months. It
all depends upon the size and complexity of
the project.
Advisory groups should watch that
planning proceeds with a minimum of
delays. In these inflationary times this
is crucial.
-------
Facility Planning and the
Advisory Group
The community must seek adequate public
involvement throughout the facility
planning process.
Public Participation Program
All Step 1 (facility planning) projects must
meet certain basic requirements for public
involvement. However, small projects
involving minor sewer rehabilitation or
minor upgrading are exempt from most
public participation requirements. Where
public participation is necessary, the
grantee:
Develops a public information program in
the early phases of decision making
Has a program for consulting the public
throughout the facilities planning process,
including the selection of the engineering
consultant if feasible
Includes an outline of the public
participation program in the plan of study
accompanying the Step 1 grant. A more
extensive public participation work plan
must be submitted no later than 45 days
after the Step 1 award
Distributes the work plan and fact sheets
to interested groups and individuals
Consults with the public when
assessment of current and future situations
and alternatives are being evaluated
Holds a public meeting when the cost
effectiveness of the alternatives is
determined, but before any plan is selected
Holds a public hearing to discuss the
recommended alternatives prior to
adoption of a facility plan
Includes an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the public participation
program in the facility plan.
Complex, controversial, or significant
projects justify more intensive public
involvement. The EPA Regional
Administrator orders a full-scale public
participation program when the project
warrants an environmental impact
statement, advanced waste treatment is
involved, or the Administrator determines
that more active public participation is
needed.
In addition to meeting the requirements of
the basic public participation program, a
grantee with a full-scale program:
Hires or designates a coordinator to carry
out the public participation workplan
Holds a public meeting (instead of
general consultations) early in the facility
planning process at the time when current
and future situations are being identified,
and initial alternatives are being screened
Establishes an advisory group shortly
after acceptance of the Step 1 grant award.
Planning Steps
The facility planning process has several
planning steps. On the surface these steps
may appear sequential, but, in fact, they
are intertwined. Decisions must be
constantly reevaluated as new information
becomes available.
The major steps are:
1. Assessing the current situation
2. Assessing the future situation
3. Identifying alternatives
4. Conducting environmental assessment
5. Making cost-effectiveness analysis
6. Selecting the plan.
The advisory group should play an
important role in the public
participation program, which continues
through all of these steps.
Many aspects of the
community's future must be
considered during the planning
process.
-------
Assessing the Current Situation
Assessing the Future Situation
Public involvement is crucial in the first
step. Information overlooked or
misinterpreted may substantially affect the
outcome of the facilities planning process.
The severity and extent of existing
problems should be verified.
During this stage the agency gathers
information on the planning area:
institutions, population, and environmental
aspects such as water quality. Data also is
needed on existing wastewater flows,
treatment systems, and the performances
of these treatment systems. One special
concern is environmental consequences of
infiltration and inflow (I/I). Infiltration and
inflow are surface and groundwaters that
get into the sewer systems. Is it cheaper
(more cost-effective) to provide treatment
capacity to compensate for excessive I/I, or
is it better to repair the sewer system?
Advisory groups should watch
carefully the assessment of the current
situation. They will want to be sure
that the data is accurate, that data
collection methods are thorough, and
that operation and management of
existing facilities are adequate. Before
going any further, the community
should know what the problems are
and what is causing them.
Advisory Group Questions:
Current Situation
Do water quality problems really
exist?
What are they?
Are the existing facilities sufficient?
Is the soil adequate for onsite
disposal?
What unique resources does the
community have that are worth
protecting?
How does the areawide 208 plan
relate to the facilities plan?
Assessment of the future situation is often
the most difficult part of facility planning,
and probably has the most impact on the
planning process. The advisory group is
made up of a cross section of residents who
know the community. For this reason the
advisory group can play an important role
in discussing the community's future.
Projections about the future are uncertain,
and even the experts admit that some
guess work is involved. This important
step in facility planning can benefit from
the experience and knowledge of advisory
group members.
A whole series of issues must be addressed:
How is the future population estimated?
How much wastewater will the
population generate?
What is the basis for estimating the total
wastewater flow?
How does the facility relate to other
community objectives such as recreational
opportunities?
How does industry affect the size of the
facility?
Is it better to seek reduced flows through
water conservation, or to build reserve
capacity for growth?
What geographic areas will the facility
serve?
What are the projected land uses?
Each of these issues has a major impact on
the facility. They warrant more detailed
analysis and advisory group discussion.
Population Estimates
Sewage collection and treatment facilities
can turn bullish population forecasts into
self-fulfilling prophesies. Many
communities have nearly gone bankrupt
because of oversized and underused
wastewater treatment plants. Such
facilities create economic pressures to
spread around the cost by adding more
users. In addition to unwanted growth, in
the early years the users essentially pay
the tab for nonexistent population. To
avoid paying for more wastewater
treatment capacity than is actually needed,
the advisory group should be sure that
reasonable projections are made.
-------
Assumptions or calculations should not be
accepted without careful consideration and
discussion.
The EPA gives special attention to this
important issue. Guidelines to the
cost-effectiveness analysis regulations give
the procedures for using population
projections in both 208 areawide and 201
facilities planning.
Wastewater Generation
The future need for sewage treatment
capacity is determined by multiplying the
total population times the estimated
wastewater volume per person. The large
populations can magnify small errors in
per capita estimates. Recent studies show
per capita sewage flows in the range of
50-80 gallons per day (gpcd). The common
estimate of 100 gpcd includes flows due to
infiltration and inflow, and small amounts
from commercial establishments. The
advisory group should ask for verification
of the flows.
Industrial Contribution
Joint treatment of industrial and domestic
wastes produces economies of scale and
sometimes improved operations. However,
these wastewater mixtures can make
biological sewage treatment processes less
effective. They also can contain substances
that cause problems in sewers, sludges, or
land treatment systems.
Since industrial wastes may upset
(damage) wastewater treatment plants, the
EPA has issued general standards for the
pretreatment of these wastes. The EPA
requires each federally-assisted agency to
adopt industrial waste ordinances,
equitable user charges, and industrial cost
recovery systems.
Industrial waste flows should be assessed
to ensure that the treatment capacity
reserved for industry is adequate but not
excessive.
Water Conservation
The EPA requires the community to
consider wastewater flow reductions in
studying various planning alternatives. As
a minimum the grantee must assess:
ฐ Flow reduction methods for existing
residential, commercial, and industrial
sources
ฐ Future flow reductions achieved through
changes in local ordinances, codes, price
strategies, and public information
programs.
Sewer Service Area
The service area is determined by the
community with the advice of the
engineering consultant. Regional plants
have been favored in past years since they
appear to offer ease in regulation,
monitoring, and economies of scale for
treatment. However, considering that 70
percent of the money for waatewater
pollution control is spent on the collection
and transport of wastes, moving sewage
from one spot to another may not be cost
effective!
Small-scale treatment alternatives,
including individual septic systems, are
regaining prominence in water quality
planning. The issue of sewer pipe size and
service area thus is extremely important.
Sewer Issue
Advisory groups should be interested in
sewers because sewers:
ฐ Cost 70 percent of water pollution control
expenditures
ฉ Are usually not fundable with federal
monies, but can cost more than $50 per
foot!
* Affect future land uses and land values
8 Spur development into areas
ฎ Affect future growth of the community.
-------
There are three basic types of sewers:
Interceptor sewers, collector sewers, and
lateral sewers. The interceptor sewers are
large pipes that gather wastes from
neighborhoods and communities. Their
location can determine where new
neighborhoods are built, where industry
will locate, and where new commercial
development will occur. Without careful
planning, interceptors can lead to
unwanted development and suburban
sprawl. Interceptor sewers are eligible for
75 percent federal grants.
The potential for unwanted growth
associated with an interceptor sewer was so
great in the Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
facility plan that the EPA ordered work
stopped and an environmental impact
statement prepared.
Collector sewers pick up sewage from
within the neighborhood itself. Collector
sewers for new communities generally are
not fundable. Lateral sewers, the hookups
from the homes to the collectors, are not
eligible for federal grants.
The funding policies of the EPA and
states, however, are often complex and
confusing. Advisory groups should be
aware of those which relate to the
particular situation and identify the
portion of the collection system that
will have to be paid for with 100
percent local funds.
Advisory Group Questions:
Future Situation
How much growth is projected?
Are projections consistent with
community goals and land use plans?
What per capita flow projections are
being used?
Are wastewater flow projections
accurate?
Where will interceptor sewers be
located?
What parts of the community will be
served by sewers?
Most costs of a sewer system arise from
acquiring rights of way, laying pipes, and
building pumping stations. It costs little
more to install a large diameter sewer
than a small one. There is a strong
temptation to build reserve or growth
capacity into the system. Growth capacity
and location of sewers thus are of
enormous importance to many
communities. The advisory group can see
that the issues are fully evaluated and
discussed.
Total Flow Estimates
Daily average wastewater flow is often
used for the design of treatment works. It
is based on expected future population, per
capita waste contributions, industrial
flows, commercial flows, reasonable
infiltration and inflow estimates, and the
impacts of water conservation. From a
technical perspective it is easy to design a
plant after the design flow is chosen.
Unfortunately, much more effort often
goes into the design of processes rather
than the more important matter of
design flow predictions. The advisory
group should see that this does not
occur. An advisory group should place
considerable emphasis on the design
flow estimate!
Identifying Alternatives
There are many ways to collect and treat
wastewater. However, given all the
limitations of water quality standards,
regional service area, and cost
effectiveness, the community may find that
only a few alternatives exist.
As the number of options diminishes,
the selection of the treatment processes
becomes more a matter of an
engineering and economics choice. This
is why the early work in identifying the
problem and assessing the current and
future situations becomes so important
to the advisory group. Nevertheless,
the advisors can still emphasize
processes that appear the most
economically and environmentally
sound.
-------
Some of the basic options include:
No Facility
Are new or upgraded facilities really
required? This basic question should be
answered before any other options are
pursued. The performance of existing
facilities may possibly be improved as an
alternative to constructing new facilities.
Recycling or pretreatment may reduce
industrial waste loads. Water conservation
may reduce residential flows. Other
considerations exist.
Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Alternatives
Conventional wastewater treatment
systems deliver wastewater to a central
treatment facility, subject the wastewater
to a series of treatment processes, and
discharge the effluent into surface waters.
If operated properly, conventional
technologies can produce effluents of high
quality, although sometimes at high cost.
These processes are usually time-proven
and dependable.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Options
Do water quality problems really require
advanced wastewater treatment? Advanced
wastewater treatment methods may double
the cost of treatment as compared to
secondary methods. With land application
as a notable exception, they often consume
large amounts of energy and chemicals,
and produce excessive volumes of waste
by-products called sludges.
Waste Treatment and Reuse of Purified
Water
Water resources are becoming increasingly
more limited and/or expensive to develop.
As the cost goes up, the reuse of treated
wastewater becomes more attractive. Reuse
currently occurs as industrial cooling or
process waters, recreational water supplies,
and agricultural irrigation. In Lubbock,
Texas, where irrigation water is scarce, 15
mgd of secondary effluent is applied to
2,300 acres of wheat, barley, oats, rye,
cotton, and sorghum. An aquifer created
by the effluent over the decades is now used
to supply recreational lakes.
One option is not to build a facility.
Another option is to build a conventional treatment plant.
Advisory Group Questions:
Alternatives
Is a full range of alternatives
considered, including small-scale
options as well as the central
treatment facilities?
Is land treatment seriously
considered?
Is operation and management taken
into account?
Is sludge handling and disposal
accounted for?
Are there opportunities to recycle
or reuse treated wastewater?
How much treatment capacity is
required?
Are innovative and alternative
technologies considered?
Is the plan compatible with the 208
areawide plan?
-------
Construction of onsite treatment systems is also an option.
Another option is land application.
Better operation and management of the existing facility is an option.
Small System Waste Treatment and
Disposal
Onsite treatment systems to collect and
control wastewaters include septic tanks,
mounds, holding tanks, small aerobic
treatment plants, or other onsite and small
processes serving residences or commercial
establishments. The onsite alternative is
becoming increasingly attractive since the
Clean Water Act provides federal grant
funds for onsite treatment works in certain
situations.
Conventional Treatment and Land
Application
Wastewater is processed in the
conventional manner at the primary or
secondary treatment level. However, the
effluent is applied to the land, not
discharged into surface waters. Federal law
requires the specific consideration of land
application as an alternative. Land
treatment is a good consideration for
advanced waste treatment. Some states
require secondary treatment before
application, which placed land treatment
at a severe economic disadvantage to
conventional methods except for advanced
waste treatment requirements.
In Muskegon County, Michigan, 6,300 acres
planted mostly with corn are irrigated by
secondary effluent from a 43 million
gallons per day (mgd) wastewater project.
Sludge Management
Sludge management and disposal is a
major problem! Unfortunately, the
pollutants removed from wastewater do not
vanish. They become an obnoxious
material called sludge. The cost of sludge
treatment often equals the cost of sewage
treatment. It, therefore, is a vital part of
the analysis of every treatment system.
Advanced wastewater treatment sludges
add to the problem. Some land treatment
procedures do not produce sludge.
Operation and Management
Operation and management is a major
concern of both existing and new treatment
facilities. The EPA has found that many
facilities do not meet water quality limits
because they are not operated properly.
Operation and management are extremely
important in facility planning. These costs
must be borne solely by the locality.
Other Considerations
The EPA guidelines also call for a few
other considerations in the selection of
alternatives. Matters such as construction
staging schedules, and multiple use
opportunities for open space and recreation
are taken into account.
-------
Conducting Environmental
Assessment
Environmental aspects of different sewage
management alternatives are assessed
during the facility planning. Both the
primary and secondary impacts associated
with various alternatives are addressed.
The primary effects are those that directly
relate to location, construction, and
operation of the project. For example,
impacts on a stream from the effluent are
direct effects. Secondary effects are indirect
or induced by the project, such as changes
in population, economic growth, and land
use.
A grantee has to prepare an environmental
information document, which is used in the
facility planning, and is submitted to the
EPA. The EPA then reviews it to
determine whether or not to prepare a full
environmental impact statement (EIS). An
EIS must be prepared if:
The facility plan will induce significant
development and changes in land use
The treatment works is located on
productive wetlands or will affect
endangered species
The treatment works will have a
significant adverse effect on public lands,
and recreational or historic opportunities
The treatment works will have a
significant adverse effect on air or water
quality, noise, and/or on fish and wildlife
habitats
The effluent limitations for pretreatment
are insufficient to protect present or future
water uses
The treatment works will cause
significant social dislocations, or will
adversely affect significant amounts of
agricultural land.
To save time EIS's are often conducted
concurrently with facility planning. EIS's
are prepared for only about five percent of
the construction grant projects.
The advisory group can help identify
potential impacts at the local level. It
should see that the environmental
information has adequate public and
governmental review. The federal
requirements are quite specific and
should be consulted.
Advisory Group Questions:
Environmental Effects
What are the existing and future
environments without the project?
Has an environmental, social, and
economic evaluation of waste
treatment alternatives been made?
Have all environmental impacts been
identified and thoroughly discussed?
Making Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
The final selection of the wastewater
treatment alternative is based upon a
cost-effectiveness analysis. It is a method
of determining how well a treatment
system achieves its objectives in terms of
overall costs, including economic, social,
and environmental costs. This may not
sound very interesting, but it is important.
Except for certain innovative and
alternative projects, the EPA can only fund
the most cost-effective solution. The most
cost-effective wastewater management
solution is the one with the lowest overall
monetary costs (including capital,
operation, management, mitigation, and
opportunity costs over a 20-year period)
without significant adverse nonmonetary
effects such as environmental or social
drawbacks.
Capital costs are eligible for federal grants,
but operation and management costs are
borne completely by the municipality. The
costs of .mitigating adverse environmental
effects, and the costs associated with
opportunities lost because of the project,
are also figured into the analysis. Besides
costs there are offsetting revenues. For
example, the revenues from the sale of
wastewater or organic sludge to farmers, or
the value of crops grown on public land
with land application of the wastewater go
into the calculations.
Another area of costs is important to
localities, but do not enter the
cost-effectiveness analysis. This matter
finance concerns how the community
will pay for its share for planning, design,
and construction costs. It is not a subject
that is ignored until the end of the process.
Indeed, the means of local finance such as
taxes, and user fees must be fully discussed
in the facilities plan.
11
-------
The advisory group is not expected to
perform detailed cost calculations.
Nevertheless, it can probe the costs
and offsetting revenues that go into the
bottom line dollar value. Even more
important, however, is the review for
overriding environmental and social
considerations. The advisory group
also should see that the full meaning of
the local financial arrangements, such
as household charges, are realized by
the community.
Advisory Group Questions:
Cost Effectiveness
Which sewage treatment alternative
has the least monetary cost without
overriding environmental and social
drawbacks?
Are the environmental and social
effects adequately assessed?
A06NCY
n showing cost of water pollution control facilities for Phtlmont, N
Selecting the Plan
All the activity in facility planning
culminates in the selection of a preferred
alternative. Before the final choice is made
the number of alternatives has already
been reduced. This initial screening
eliminates certain options from further
analysis.
The advisory group should be sure at
every stage that there are valid reasons
for dropping alternatives. The
ramifications and tradeoffs of all
alternatives should be evident.
The local agency (the grantee) is
responsible for making the final decision.
The basis for this decision is the sum total
of facility planning.
This includes the technical work of the
consultant and the advice of the advisory
group and other residents of the
community. Some final questions for the
advisory group are:
Does the final choice meet the initial
goals and objectives?
Will it solve the community's problem for
the least cost and with the least adverse
effects?
Summary
An important point to remember is that
facility planning accounts for only five
percent of the construction grant dollars
spent. However, this small amount directs
how the remaining 95 percent will be spent
in design and construction. The need for
goal planning and the consequences of
inadequate planning should be evident.
The advisory group can incorporate
the values and ideas of community
residents into the facility planning
process, thereby ensuring a better final
solution at reasonable costs to the
communitv.
12
-------
Case Study
Choosing the Alternative
Southeastern United States
This case study is adapted from: Rastattsr. C.L., ed. Municipal
Wastewater Management: Citizen's Guide to Facility Planning, FHD-6.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water
Program Operations. January 1979, 263 pp.
This is the actual case of a small town in the Southeast
that has no public management of wastewater. The
circumstances and facts about the town's facility plan
show how treatment alternatives are evaluated.
The town's population is 3,150. A water district provides
water service to 436 people through 170 water meters, of
which 150 are located in the town itself. The district
includes 19 small businesses, one factory, and an
elementary school. The district desires to provide
sewerage service. It has prepared a 20-year wastewater
facilities plan, and has applied to the EPA for grant
assistance.
The planning area is about 2,300 acres. Overflowing septic
tank systems are the only source of wastewater
discharges. There are no known point sources of
wastewater effluent. About 20 percent of the homes are
located on soils with very low permeability, which
probably accounts for the occasional failures of the septic
tanks.
The area's population is relatively stable. The district
currently has a moderate growth rate, adding about four
customers a year. The factory, however, plans to expand.
Population is expected to grow by 50 to 100 percent in the
next 20 years.
The district sees a public wastewater system as a key
ingredient for future growth and improvements, and as a
remedy for the current health hazards and environmental
pollution.
Some wastewater management alternatives were
initially rejected. Upgrading existing facilities more
than 130 septic tanks and pit privies, inadequately
designed and poorly maintained was considered
impracticable," because the impermeable soils were
unsuitable for onsite disposal systems.
Regional solutions were much too costly. The nearest
existing treatment facility is 17 miles away. The capital
costs of sewers, force mains, and pumping stations to
deliver the district's small flow to the regional plant
would exceed $1 million, nine times the cost of any local
alternative.
Monetary Evaluation
The district analyzed the complete spectrum of waste
treatment alternatives. Four were evaluated in detail.
Monetary costs were determined for them:
ป Alternative No. 1. A conventional gravity sewer system
with a central treatment facility. The least expensive type
of treatment would be an oxidation lagoon, followed by an
infiltration-percolation land treatment system. Another
option aerated reactor tanks followed by soil
infiltration-percolation was rejected as slightly more
expensive
* Alternative No. 2. Similar treatment process, but most
of the sewer system would employ effluent sewers. In this
approach wastewater solids are removed by septic tanks
and stored near each source. Only the liquid effluent from
the septic tanks is pumped to the central treatment site.
The effluent sewer system consists of interceptor tanks
and siphons or heavy duty sump pumps, with small
diameter plastic pipes carrying the effluent to a central
oxidation pond for additional treatment
Alternative No. 3. This alternative would involve the
use of short stretches of effluent sewer (similar to sewers
in Alternative No. 2), but the septic tank effluent would
be carried directly to a subsurface disposal site. The
effluent would be disposed in 22 separate community sites.
New individual disposal systems also would be provided
for an additional 22 customers. All onsite and offsite
wastewater facilities would be publicly-owned and
managed, including septic tanks, sewers, and treatment
disposal facilities. Services to the elementary school and to
the factory would be an option that would not affect the
relative costs of the four alternatives, but could reduce the
average charges per customer. Even without the school
and industry sharing the costs, the user costs for this
alternative would be significantly lower than for the other
two options. User costs were estimated to be just 58
percent of those required for Alternative No. 2, while
construction costs were about 21 percent lower than
Alternative No. 2, and 42 percent lower than Alternative
No. 1.
Alternative No. 4. This approach would consist of
onsite disposal for all of the 144 customers included in
Alternative No. 3. Serious problems of design and
implementation caused this alternate to be rejected.
13
-------
Monetary Costs of Four Alternatives
Item Alternative
123
Sewers
Treatment
Disposal
Total
$390,100
81,600
53,900
$525,600
$246,900
81,600
53,900
$382,400
$302,700
$268,300
By avoiding the costs of sewer construction and
maintenance, Alternative No. 4 would have the lowest
capital and operating costs. However, about 20 percent of
the existing structures are located on soils that severely
limit onsite disposal.
The next least costly option would be Alternative No. 3,
the community subsurface disposal system. It would be 11
percent more expensive than No. 4. However, the cost
estimates of Alternative No. 3 probably would be more
accurate since there were fewer uncertainties in
construction and operation.
Nonmonetary Evaluation
All four alternatives would meet the effluent criteria, and
satisfy other environmental criteria. In the actual
facilities plan the environmental effects were qualitative!}
evaluated in detail, and then rated with numbers from 1
(best) to 4 (worst).
Alternative Nos. 1 and 2 would have larger erosion losses
because of the construction of conventional gravity sewer
systems, lagoons, and an infiltration basin. Alternative
No. 2 would have less erosion and disturb streams less
than No. 1 because small diameter pressure sewers are
not buried as deep as conventional gravity sewers. These
alternatives also would produce significantly more noise
because of sewer construction.
As for developmental effects, conventional gravity sewers
could stimulate slightly more growth and new industry
where excess sewerage capacity exists. Thus, Alternative
No. 1 would have greater potential for secondary impacts
than options Nos. 2, 3, and 4. However, this is a rural
community, and other factors such as labor supply and
transportation influence growth as much as sewer
services affect growth. Thus, all alternatives would have
only slight secondary impacts.
Implementation
All alternatives could be implemented legally by the
water district. Alternative Nos. 3 and 4 are less common
techniques. Therefore, they could require additional time
for local, state, and federal approvals. However, since
Alternatives Nos. 1 and 2 may require trained operators,
and require more local funds, potential users may object
to the user charges.
Since the water district would operate wastewater
services, and it is an organization known to and generally
supported by local users, it probably would satisfactorily
implement construction, operation, maintenance, and
financial management. The fourth alternative would be
particularly difficult to implement since 20 percent of the
homes are located on soils with low permeability.
Generally, none of the alternatives has any overwhelming
advantage for implementation.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Monetary costs, environmental effects, implementation
feasibility, and other factors are considered together in a
cost-effectiveness analysis. Alternative No. 2 was
considered better than No. 1. The second alternative
removes 70 percent of the suspended solids and 50 percent
of BOD in the interceptor tanks, reduces the organic load
in the sewer, and reduces the environmental effects of
accidental discharges from the sewer system. Alternative
No. 3 was considered ecologically sound since accidental
sewer discharges are minimized, and nutrients are
returned to the land.
Alternatives Nos. 3 and 4 also avoid the need to upgrade
treatment facilities to meet changing standards for effluent
discharges to surface waters. Alternative No. 3 minimizes
system complexity and reduces O&M costs. Alternatives Nos.
3 and 4 also permit planning of community expansion since
strip growth could be encouraged by conventional sewers.
Alternatives Nos. 3 and 4 would not produce odors, while
odors may occur from a treatment facility.
In general, the environmental effects did not differ greatly
for the four alternatives, partly because of the small size
of the project, the lack of sensitive environmental
features, and the relatively slow rate of growth.
Plan Selection
Public hearings were held on the alternatives after the
costs and effects of each were predicted. Generally,
Alternative No. 3 was preferred due to lower total cost
and simplicity of operation. The cost of community
wastewater management was thought to be about equal to
the cost of privately maintaining and replacing existing
septic tank systems about $7 per month for an average
user charge. By contrast, the conventional sewers and
central treatment were expected to cost $15 per month.
Alternative No. 3 was selected by the community and
funded by the EPA.
14
-------
Selected Resources
Deese, P. L. and J. F. Hudson. Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small
Communities. Draft. Cincinnati, OH: Municipal Environmental Research Lab., Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1979. 141 pp.
This manual presents a set of procedures for planning wastewater management
for small communities and is directed at areas with populations less than 10,000
persons. Part 1 gives an overview of the planning process and is most useful for
the advisory group. Part 2 is a technical reference showing details using case
studies. This manual can be obtained from: ORD Publications Center for
Environmental Research Information U.S. EPA, 26 West St. Clair Street,
Cincinnati, OH 45268.
Rastatter, C. L., ed. Municipal Wastewater Management: Citizens Guide to Facility
Planning. FRD-6, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Program Operations, January 1979. 263 pp.
A publication prepared by the Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC,
provides a selected and extensive discussion of activities pertinent to the
responsibilities and work of advisory groups. It includes discussion on public
participation. This publication can be obtained from: General Services
Administration (8FFS), Centralized Mailing Lists Services, Building 41, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225.
Rastatter, C. L., ed. Municipal Wastewater Management: Public Involvement Activities
Guide. FRD-7, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations, February 1979. 125 pp.
This handbook was prepared by the Conservation Foundation for use in a
training program to acquaint citizen leaders with the important decisions that
are made in planning of wastewater facilities. It condenses the Citizen's Guide to
Facility Planning. It is available from: General Services Administration (8FFS),
Centralized Mailing Lists Services, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver,
CO 80225.
Need More
Information?
15
-------
Glossary
Advanced Waste Treatment treatment
processes that can increase waste removal
beyond the secondary or biological state; it
includes removal of nutrients such as
phosphorous and nitrogen.
Aerobic Treatment treatment of
wastewater using organisms which are
dependent on the presence of oxygen to break
down organic matter.
Aquifer underground bed or layer of earth,
gravel, or porous stone that serves as a
reservoir for groundwater.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) the
amount of dissolved oxygen required in the
biological process of breaking down organic
matter in water.
Carcinogen cancer-causing substance.
Chemical Oxygen Demand a measure of
the equivalent amount of oxygen required to
break down organic and inorganic compounds
in water.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis the
determination of whether a project or technique
is worth funding; it involves both monetary and
nonmonetary factors.
Effluent treated or untreated waste
material discharged into the environment.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) a
detailed analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of a proposed project; it is necessary
when advanced waste treatment is required or
the EPA determines that a project is highly
controversial or may have significant adverse
environmental effects.
Gravity Sewer a collection system which
relies on gravity to transport wastewater from
homes to a central treatment or disposal
facility.
Holding Tank tank used for storing
wastewater prior to treatment, usually used as
an alternative for onsite problem areas.
Infiltration-Percolation Land Treatment
the application of treated wastewater onto land
to allow it to percolate downward through the
soil in order to remove nutrients such as
phosphorous and nitrogen.
Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) leakage of
ground and surface water into sewers.
Innovative and Alternative Treatment a
nonconventional, cost or energy-saving system
for treating wastewater; it may qualify for an
increase in the federal grant share by 10
percent, from 75 to 85 percent.
Mound a type of onsite disposal system
utilizing an absorption field built on a bed of
sand.
Nonpoint Source a non-specific site or
location of water pollution such as fertilizer
runoff from agricultural lands.
Oxidation Lagoon a man-made body of
water in which wastes are broken down by
bacteria.
Permeability the degree to which a
substance is capable of being penetrated by
water.
Point Source a stationary location such as
a pipe where pollutants are discharged.
16
$U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1980 0 - 332-118
-------
Working for Clean Water is a
program designed to help advisory
groups improve decision making in
water quality planning. It aims at
helping people focus on essential
issues and questions by providing
trained instructors and materials
suitable for persons with
non-technical backgrounds. These
materials include a citizen
handbook on important principles
and considerations about topics in
water quality planning, an
audiovisual presentation, and an
instructor guide for elaborating
points, providing additional
information, and engaging in
problem-solving exercises.
This program consists of 18
informational units on various
aspects of water quality planning:
Role of Advisory Groups
Public Participation
Nonpoint Source Pollution:
Agriculture, Forestry, and Mining
Urban Stormwater Runoff
Groundwater Contamination
Facility Planning in the
Construction Grants Program
Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Overview
Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Details
Small Systems
Innovative and Alternative
Technologies
Industrial Pretreatment
Land Treatment
Water Conservation and Reuse
Multiple Use
Environmental Assessment
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Wastewater Facilities Operation
and Management
The units are not designed to
make technical experts out of
citizens and local officials. Each
unit contains essential facts, key
questions, advice on how to deal
with the issues, and
clearly-written technical
backgrounds. In short, each unit
provides the information that
citizen advisors need to better
fulfill their role.
This program is available through
public participation coordinators at
the regional offices of the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency. D
This information program was
financed with federal funds from
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Cooperative
Agreement No. CT900980 01. The
information program has been
reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does the
mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation
for use.D
This project is dedicated to the
memory of Susan A. Cole.
Financial Management
------- |