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

-------