SUPPLEMENT
NO. 5
MARCH 1978
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program
References
Regulations -Guidance -Procedures
ATE
United States Environmental Protection Agency MCD 02.5
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TO HOLDERS OF THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MANUAL OF REFERENCES - MCD-02:
PLEASE FILE THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDA 77-9, 78-1, 78-2, 78-3, 78-4, 78-5,
78-6, 78-7, 78-8, 78-9 and 78-10 IN SECTION II OF THE MANUAL.
(ALSO ATTACHED IS A REVISED FOURTH PAGE FOR THE
TABLE OF CONTENTS.)
-------
Former
Memoranda Designation
PRM 75-36 Value Engineering 1n the EPA Construction PG-63
Grants Program
PRM 75-37 User Charge System: Plan and Schedule PG-65
PRM 75-38 Relationship Between 201 Facility Planning PG-66
and Water Quality Management (WQM) Planning
PRM 75-39 Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for PG-67
the Ultimate Disposal of Residues from
Uastewater Treatment Processes
PRM 75-40 Priority List.Supplement to FY 1977 PG-68
Construction Grants Guidance
PRM 76-1 Construction Grants Program Issuances
PRM 76-2 Cancellation of Certain Program Guidance
Memoranda (PGM)
PRM 76-3 Presentation of Local Government Costs of
Wastewater Treatment Works in Facility Plans
PRM 76-4 Coordination of Construction Grants Program
with EPA-Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section
10 Permit Programs
PRM 76-5 Flood Insurance Requirements
PRM 77-1 Treatment Works for Recreational Parks, Industrial
Parks, and Institutions
PRM 77-2 Grant Eligibility of Start-up Services
PRM 77-3 Plan of Operation for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
PRM 77-4 Cost Allocations for Multiple Purpose Projects
PRM 77-5 Grant Eligibility of Land Acquisition by Leasehold
or Easements for Use in Land Treatment and Ultimate
Disposal of Residues
PRM 77-6 Easements
-------
Memoranda
PRM 77-7 Management of State Project Priority Lists
PRM 77-8 Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects
PRM 77-9 Reallotment of Recovered Funds
PRM 78-1 Erosion & Sediment Control in the Construction
Grants Program
PRM 78-2 Discount Rate
PRM 78-3 "Buy American"
PRM 78-4 Grant Eligibility of Land Acquired for Storage
in Land Treatment Systems
PRM 78-5 Interim Management of FY 1978 State Priority
Lists Under the 1977 Amendments
PRM 78-6 Industrial Cost Recovery - Interim Guidance
PRM 78-7 Combined Step 2/3 Construction Grant Awards
PRM 78-8 Rejection of All Bids: Guidance for E.P.A.
Concurrence Function
PRM 78-9 Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects
PRM 78-10 Infiltration/Inflow Program Guidance
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
AUG051977
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM 77-9
Reallotment of Recovered Funds
TO:
John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Admin
or Water Program Operations (WH-546
Matthew Pilzys, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Resources Management (PM-224)
Regional Administrators (I-X)
ATTN: Water Division Directors
Management Division Directors
PURPOSE;
The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth EPA policy regarding the
reallotment of funds recovered from P.L. 92-500 authorizations and subsequent
appropriations.
DISCUSSION:
Unobligated portions of State allotments are, at the end of their initial
allotment periods, subject to reallotment as provided for in section 205(b)(l)
of P.L. 92-500 and 40 CFR 35.910-2(a) and (b). However, the extent to which
recoveries are subject to reallotment after the termination date of an initial
allotment period is not as clearly defined. Section 205(b)(2) states that
recovered obligations which are "released by the payment of the final voucher
for the project shall be immediately credited to the State to which such sums
were last allotted. Such released sums shall be added to the amounts last
allotted to such State and shall be immediately available for obligation in
the same manner and to the same extent as such last allotment." Hence, funds
recovered upon the closeout of a project (on or after final payment) are
subject to reallotment after the termination date of the most recent allotment
in effect at the time of the closeout. Funds recovered as a result of the
termination of a project are treated in the same manner.
-------
Neither the Act nor the regulations address the reallotment of other
recoveries, such as those resulting from underruns or descoping—i.e.,
recovered obligations other than those which "remain after final payment, or
after termination of a project" (§35.910-2(c)).
Over the years of operating the construction grants program, it was common
practice to treat all recoveries alike, and to have them remain in the States
to which they were originally allotted. Distinctions were not made between
those resulting from project closeouts and those resulting from actions taken
by EPA due to changes occurring in the process of constructing a project.
However, because of the explicit requirement of section 205(b)(2), that practice
must be modified.
The date of the most recent allotment of funds is important for the
reallotment process. $1 billion was allotted on May 18, 1977, and, in
accordance with the Fiscal Year 1977 Supplemental Appropriations Act, is
subject to reallotment after May 3, 1980, three years after the date of enact-
ment. (The $480 million appropriated under the Public Works Employment Act
will not be treated as an allotment for these purposes.)
POLICY:
FY-75, 74 and 73 funds which the Regional Administrator determines were
recovered prior to May 18, 1977, as a result of the closing out of projects—
i.e., at final payment or upon termination—will be subject to reallotment
after September 30, 1977—the reallotment date of the $9 billion allotted in
FY-76. All other FY-75, 74 and 73 funds which were recovered prior to
May 18, 1977, will not be subject to reallotment on September 30, 1977.
The foregoing policy is applicable only to the September 30, 1977
reallotment. However, if the currently proposed legislation to extend for
another year the reallotment date for FY-76 funds is enacted, the above
policy will be applicable to the extended date, i.e., September 30, 1978
instead of September 30, 1977.
For future fiscal years, a distinction will not be made between recoveries
resulting from project closeouts or terminations and those resulting from
underruns or descoping. Accordingly, all recoveries made subsequent to
May 17, 1977, regardless of how they are generated, will be subject to
reallotment on the basis of the procedure established in i205(b)(2) of the
Act. Therefore, funds recovered from May 18, 1977, until the date of the
next allotment of funds, will be subject to reallotment after May 3, 1980.
When further funds are allotted, recoveries thereafter will be subject
to the reallotment date of those funds. That -is, the reallotment date for
recoveries always relates to the most recent allotment.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
u£C 23 1977 Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 78-1
SUBJECT: Erosion and Sediment Control in the
Construction Grants Program
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant AdministratorCfe^n** J^f*Jjhef>
for Water Program Operations (WH-546) /
TO: Regional Administrators (I-X)
ATTN: Water Division Directors
Purpose:
This memorandum establishes the policy pertaining to the require-
ments and procedures for controlling erosion and sediment runoff caused
by the construction activity of projects funded under the EPA Construction
Grants Program.
While engineering and agronomic practices for erosion and sediment
control are site specific, detailed information pertaining to these
practices can be found in a number of publications, including those
listed in Attachment B. This memorandum provides guidelines and general
principles to be used in preparing facilities plans and project design
specifications and in conducting project inspections.
Discussion:
Problems associated with erosion and sediment loads resulting from
construction activity have long been recognized. Erosion and subsequent
excess sediment runoff are among the major factors directly responsible
for nonpoint source pollution in streams and lakes. Additional problems
which can occur include clogging of streams and lakes, alteration of
natural habitats, and damage to the aesthetics of surface waters.
-------
-2-
The on-going EPA construction grants program will continue to
generate significant construction activity throughout the country.
Ensuring that erosion and sediment control are properly handled in the
process of constructing these waste treatment projects is part of EPA's
overall responsibility. In December 1976, the Office of Water Planning
and Standards published a report entitled "Nonpoint Source Control
Guidance, Construction Activities." The document is to be used by
States and areawide 208 agencies as a guide for establishing a nonpoint
source pollution control program.
EPA policy is designed to ensure that:
1. Erosion and sediment control will be adequately addressed and
handled in areas where wastewater treatment projects are proposed.
2. Appropriate soil conservation measures are incorporated as part
of the engineering activities in the planning and design process, as
well as the construction phase of construction grant projects.
Policy:
1. Facilities planning (Step 1) - Good environmental assessment
or impact studies should investigate and evaluate the potential
for erosion and sediment runoff which could occur as a result
of construction and operation of the project. An effective
erosion and sediment runoff control program should address
measures to be taken during construction and, where appro-
priate, permanent controls to be incorporated into the completed
project. Other factors being equal, sites chosen for construc-
tion of treatment facilities should be those which offer the
least potential for erosion.
In environmentally sensitive areas (floodplains, wetlands,
coastal zones and estuaries, etc.), special construction
procedures and requirements should be employed to minimize harm
to the sensitive areas. All practicable measures should be utilized,
When applicable, the requirements described in PRM 76-4 (Coor-
dination of Construction Grants Program with EPA-Corps of
Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Permit Programs) must also be
implemented in conjunction with the erosion and sediment
control program.
Wherever State and local ordinances pertaining to construc-
tion activities are adequately defined, the grantee should
clearly specify in the facilities plan, steps to be taken for
controlling erosion and sediment in order to comply with the
State and local ordinances. However, the evaluation of the
adequacy of a project's erosion and sediment control plan
should be based on the attached guidelines.
-------
-3-
2. Design (Step 2) - Appropriate provisions of the erosion and
sediment control program specified in the facilities plan
should be implemented including: (a) scheduling construction
activities to minimize adverse impacts; (b) providing plans
and specifications for any permanent and temporary erosion
control structures and; (c) including specific erosion and
sediment control measures in O&M manuals. The construction
specifications will require implementation of the specified
erosion control plan during construction of the project.
3. Construction (Step 3) - Inspections conducted during construc-
tion should evaluate implementation of and adherence to temporary
erosion and sediment control measures and their effectiveness.
Attention should also be given to permanent erosion control
structures during final inspections.
Detailed guidance to be used in evaluating erosion and sediment
control aspects of construction grant projects, including a pertinent
list of references, is attached.
Implementation:
The measures specified in this memorandum and its attachments are
required for all projects resulting from Step 1 grants awarded after the
date of this memorandum. Appropriate provisions for erosion and sediment
control should be incorporated to the maximum extent practicable in
other active construction grant projects. For example, Step 2 and Step 3
measures should be applicable to those presently active Step 2 and Step 3
grant projects respectively.
Attachments
-------
Attachment A
Evaluation of Erosion and
Sediment Control Measures
The objective of the program is to prevent and correct problems associated
with erosion and sediment runoff processes which could occur during and
after project construction. The program should be consistent with
applicable local ordinances and the EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Guidance. Whenever appropriate, the program should reflect the
following engineering principles.
1. Construction site selection should consider potential occurrence
of erosion and sediment losses. Study of the site conditions
should include soil and geologic limitations, topography,
vegetation, wildlife habitats, proximity to surface water, and
climate.
2. The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions.
3. When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be kept
at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating runoff and
erosion problems which require extensive control measures.
4. Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled
before grading begins.
5. Land exposure should be minimized in terms of area and time.
6. Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as quickly
as possible by means of mulching or vegetation.
7. Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible.
8. Appropriate structural or agronomic practices to control
runoff and sedimentation should be provided during and after
construction.
9. Early completion of stabilized drainage system (temporary and
permanent systems) will substantially reduce erosion potential.
10. Roadways and parking lots should be paved or otherwise stabilized
as soon as feasible.
11. Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm con-
struction schedule is known and can be effectively coordinated
with the grading and clearing activity.
-------
-2-
Because of technical limitations, it is recognized that the foregoing
principles cannot always be incorporated in a project plan. Whenever
needed, however, these practices should be included.
Minimum Requirements
In addition to the general engineering principles described in the
previous paragraph, the following items represent the minimum engineering
effort to be incorporated in development of the project.
1. Facility Planning (Step 1)
As part of the environmental assessment or environmental impact
study, the potential for erosion and sediment runoff should be identified
and evaluated. In determining the scope of the study, the following items
should be considered and evaluated where appropriate:
- Soil and geologic characteristics
- Land topography and land use classification
- Drainage basin conditions
- Rainfall or wind characteristics
In environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains and coastal
estuaries, etc., special problems including long slopes, steep grades
and highly erodible soils should be identified and evaluated. When
appropriate, special construction procedures and constraints associated
with these problems should be addressed and incorporated in the plans
and specifications. For project sites where dewatering operations are
required during construction, adverse effects from the discharge of
silt-laden waters should be minimized by means of filtration or sedi-
mentation basins, or any other appropriate methods.
For projects involving land treatment or disposal, methods of
application should be carefully studied and selected to make sure that
soil erosion and sediment runoff is minimized. In addition, requirements
for sediment control practices and their maintenance after construction
is completed should be specified.
2. Plans and Specifications (Step 2)
The project plans and specifications should include all structures
and practices designed for erosion and sediment control. The plan
should be consistent with the general sediment control program set forth
in the facilities plan. In addition, the plan should include the following:
-------
-3-
a. A schedule for land clearing and grading in relation to the
corresponding schedule for each structure to be built. If at
all possible, the clearing should immediately precede the
construction activity.
b. Specifications for temporary and permanent measures to be used
for controlling erosion and sediment including a schedule and
specific location for each measure.
c. A separate list containing: (1) chronological completion dates
for each temporary and permanent measure for controlling
erosion and sediment; (2) location, type and purpose for each
measure; and (3) dates when those temporary measures will be
removed or replaced. This list will serve as a guide for con-
tractors as well as field inspectors during and after construction.
d Appropriate maintenance procedures for each sediment control
structure should be specified in detail in the operation and
maintenance manual required as part of the construction grant.
3. Construction (Step 3)
The State, EPA and other appropriate local, State and Federal
agencies should coordinate their efforts to effectively carry out the
inspections by using the guide contained in the plans and specifications.
The objective of these inspections is not only to ensure compliance, but
also to make sure that necessary corrective steps are taken where it is
found that (1) sediment control measures originally specified were not
adequate, and (2) additional measures are needed for problems not anticipated
in the design phase.
Post Construction:
The final project inspection should make sure that all temporary
sediment control measures are removed or replaced with permanent measures
and all permanent structures are built as specified.
-------
Attachment B
References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control
Guidance. Construction Activities. U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Planning & Standards, Washington, D.C. 20460 (December 1976).
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Implementation, EPA R27 2015, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (August 1972).
3. Meyer, L. Donald and Kramer, Larry A., "Erosion Equations Predict
Land Slope Development," Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 50, No. 9
(September 1969).
4. Meyer, L.D., "Reducing Sediment Pollution by Erosion Control on
Construction Sites," paper presented at Seventh American Mater
Resources Conference, Washington, D.C. (October 1971).
5. Meyer, L.D., et al., "Erosion Runoff and Revegetation of Denuded
Construction Sites," Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 14, No. 1, St. Joseph, Michigan
(1971).
6. Meyer, L.D., et al., "Mulch Rates for Erosion Control on Steep
Slopes," Soil Science Society of American Proceedings, Vol. 34, No.
6, Madison, Wisconsin (November/December 1970).
7. Wischmeier, W.H., et al., "A Soil Erodibility Nomograph for Farmland
and Construction Sites." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
(September/October 1971).
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations, Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition from
Construction of Highways and Land Development, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1971).
9. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Urban Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. (1970).
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Processes. Procedures. and
Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from All Construction
KcTfvity. EPA 430/9-73-007. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Water
Programs, Washington, D.C. 20460 (October 1973).
-------
-2-
Attachment B
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Method to Control Fine-
Grained Sediments Resulting from Construction Activity. EPfr 440/9-
76-026, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C.
(December 1976).
12. Local Soil and Water Conservation District Technical Guides on file
at each Soil Conservation Service Office.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methods of Quickly Vegetating
Soils of Low Productivity, Construction Activities. EPA 440/9-75-
006, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington, D.C. (July
1975).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
26 1978
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 78-2
Subject: Discount Rate
From: JLiJohn T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Admlni
^WT'for Water Program Operations (WH 546)
To: | Regional Water Division Directors
Enclosed is a copy of the notice published by the Water Resources
Council of the new discount rate of 6 5/8 percent. The new rate was
effective as of October 1, 1977. Cost-effectiveness analyses in new
facility planning starts are to be based on the rate of 6 5/8 percent.
We have arranged to distribute the enclosed Information to consulting
engineers through the newsletter of the Consulting Engineers Council.
Please distribute copies of this information to the States for use in
their programs.
Enclosure
-------
U.S. Water Resources Council, 2120 L Street, N.W.. Washington, D C. 20037
'^^^f^^^^^'7S^^^^S^S£sS^^^^^^S^:^^^^S^^^^
NOV 3 1377
USDI Guy R. Martin
USDA M. Rupert Cutler
ARHY Michael Slumenfeld
DOT Owen W. Siler
FPC Francis J. Flynn
COMM Lucy A. Falcone
HUD Robert C. Ernbry, Jr.
EPA Ton Jorlir.g
ENERGY Jasies L. Liverman
OMB Eliot Cutler
JUST James W. Moorman
CEQ Gus Speth
Subject: Discount Rate and Water Supply Act of 1958 Interest Rate
The interest rate to be used by Federal agencies in the formulation
and evaluation of plans for water and related land resources is
6 5/8 percent for the period October 1, 1977, through and including
September 30, 1978. Attached for your use and information is the
notice of change in the discount rate which is to be forwarded to
the Federal Register.
The interest rate determined by the Treasury Department in accord-
ance with the provisions of Section 301(b) of the Uater Supply \ct
of 1958 is 6.063 percent.
Attachment
Leo M. Eisel
Director
cc
Chairmen,
Chairmen,
Chairman,
River Basin Commissions
Inter-Agency Committees
Tennessee Valley Authority
-------
United States
Water Resources Council
Principles and Standards for Planning
Water and Related Land Resources
Change in Discount Rate
Notice is hereby given that the interest.rate to be used
by Federal agencies in the formulation and evaluation of
plans for water and related land resources is 6 5/8 per-
cent for the period October 1, 1977, through and' including
September 30, 1978.
The rate has been computed in accordance with Chapter IV,
D., "The Discount Rate" in the "Standards for Planning
Water and Related Land Resources" of the Water Resources
Council, as amended (39 FR 29242), and is to be used by
all Federal agencies in plan formulation and evaluation
of water and related land resources projects for the
purpose of discounting future benefits and computing
costs, or otherwise converting benefits and costs to a
common time basis.
-------
The Department of the Treas'ury on October 14, 1977,
informed the Water Resources Council pursuant to
Chapter IV, D., (b) that the interest rate would be
seven percent based upon the formula set forth in
Chapter IV, D., (a): " * * * the average yield during
the preceding Fiscal Year on interest-bearing market-
able securities of the United States which, at the time
the computation is made, have terms of 15 years or more
remaining to maturity * * *." However, Chapter IV, D.,
(a) further provides " * * * [tjhat in no event shall
the rate be raised or lowered more than one-quarter of
one percent for any year." Since the rate in Fiscal
Year 1977 was 6 3/8 percent (41 FR 48010), the rate for
Fiscal Year 1978 is 6 5/8 percent.
/s/ Lev/is D. Walier
LrJ Leo M. Eisel
j Director
Dated:
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
17 FEB 1S/8
OFflCb OF W4 i Ef? AND
ConstructYo'n'^'rants'rrF"JlLb
Program Requirement Memorandum
PRM No. 78-3
SUBJECT: Buy American
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator VT~ /**
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators
Section 215 of the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act, as amended
by section 39 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (°ublic Law 9r:-°17)
provides that no grant (Step 3 grant), for which application is received
by the Regional Administrator after February 1, 1978, shall be made
unless preference is given to the use of domestic construction materials
in the construction of sewage treatment works (Buy American).
Municipalities applying for Step 3 grants after February 1, 197'?,
must be notified that the Buy-American orovision will apply to orocurements
under those Step 3 grants. Grant awarding officials must insure that
grants awarded prior to amendment of the Construction Grant Regulations
include a special condition requiring the grantee to give ireference to
domestic construction materials pursuant to section 215 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and EPA implementing regulations
and guidelines.
The following guidance is provided to aid in implementation of the
Buy American provision. The definitions have been adapted from the current
Federal Procurement Regulations which EPA has been directed to follow, where
applicable.
"Construction material" means any article, material or supply
brought to the construction site for incorporation in the building or
work. An unmanufactured construction material is a "domestic construction
material" if it has been mined or produced in the United States. A
manufactured construction material is a "domestic construction material"
if it has been manufactured in the United States substantially all from
articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced or manufactured (as
the case may be) in the United States. Generally, a construction material
is considered a domestic construction material if the cost of its components
-------
which have been mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States
exceeds 50 percent of the cost of all of its components. "Component" means
any article, material, or supply directly incorporated in a construction
material.
A component shall be considered to have been "mined, produced, or
manufactured in the United States" (regardless of its source in fact), if
the article, material, or supply in which it is incorporated was manufactured
in the United States and the component is of a class or kind determined
by the Regional Administrator to be not mined, produced, or manufactured in the
United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities
and of a satisfactory quality.
Bidding documents for construction work which is funded by a
Step 3 grant for which application is made after February 1, 1978, must
include the following statement:
INFORMATION REGARDING BUY AMERICAN PROVISION
(a) The Buy American Provision of Public Law 95-217 (section 215
of Public Law 92-500 as amended) as implemented by EPA
regulations and guidance, generally requires that preference
be given to the use of domestic construction material in the
performance of this contract.
(b) Bids or proposals offering use of nondomestic construction
material nay be acceptable for award if the Regional Administrator
waives the Buy American provision based upon those factors that
are deemed relevant, including: (i) such'use is not in the public
interest; (ii) the cost is unreasonable; (iii) the available
resources of the Agency are not sufficient to implement the provision;
or (iv) the articles, materials, or supplies of the class
or kind to be used or the articles, materials, or supplies from
which they are manufactured are not mined, produced, or
manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States in
sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and
of a satisfactory quality for the particular project. The
Regional Administrator may also waive the Buy American provision if
it is determined that application of this provision is contrary to
multilateral government procurement agreements. Such evidence as
the EPA Regional Administrator may deem relevant shall be furnished
to justify use of nondomestic construction material.
-------
Step 3 contracts must include the following paragraph in addition
to Appendix C-2:
BUY AMERICAN
In accordance with the Buy American provision
in Public Law 95-217 (section 215 of Public Law 92-500
as amended) and implementing EPA regulations and
guidelines, the Contractor agrees that preference
will be given to domestic construction material
by the contractor, subcontractors, materialmen,
and suppliers in the performance of this contract.
The Regional Administrator may waive the Buy American provision
based upon those factors that are deemed relevant, including: (i) such
use is not in the public interest; (ii) the cost is unreasonable; (iii)
the available resources of the Agency are not sufficient to implement the
provision (subject to the concurrence of the Deputy Administrator); or
(iv) the articles, materials, or supplies of the class or kind to be
used or the articles, materials, or supplies fron which they are manufactured
are not mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the
United States in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities
and of a satisfactory quality for the particular project.
If the Regional Administrator believes that application of the Buy
American provision would be contrary to multilateral government procurement
agreements, the Regional Administrator may request the Deputy Administrator
to waive the provision.
The amount of cost differential by which domastic construction
material may be given preference shall generally be the sum determined
by computing up to six percent of the bid or offered price of
materials of foreign origin including all costs of delivery to the
construction site, including any applicable duty, whether or not
assessed. Computations will normally be based on costs on the date
of opening of bids or proposals.
The Regional Administrator may utilize the appropriate procedures
of 40 CFR 35.939 in making determinations, and the "Buy-American"
procedures, regulations, precedents and requirements of other Federal
departments and agencies shall generally be observed.
The Buy American provision is new to the EPA municipal wastewater
construction grants program, and no specific EPA precedents exist. To
help create such precedents, where it is determined that the Buy American
provision should be waived, or when problems or questions arise, it should
be brought to the attention of the Director of the Municipal Construction
Division and the Assistant General Counsel-Grants.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C 20460
17FEB 1978
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 78-4
SUBJECT: Grant Eligibility of Land Acquired for Storage in
Land Treatment Systems
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I thru X
PURPOSE
This memorandum provides additional guidance concerning grant
eligibility of land acquired by purchase, leasing, or easements for use
in land treatment systems.
DISCUSSION
The Agency has previously issued three PRM's on acquiring land for
use in land treatment of wastewaters and sludges. PRM 75-25 (formerly
PGM-49) covers the interpretation of the eligibility of land acquisition
costs for land treatment processes (wastewaters). PRM 75-39 (formerly
PGM-67) covers the eligibility of land acquisition costs for the ultimate
disposal of residues from wastewater treatment processes (sludges). PRM
77-5 covers the eligiblity of leasing or easements in lieu of fee simple
purchase for use in either wastewater treatment alternatives or sludge
management systems. The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) requires
changes in Section 35.905-23 (definition of treatment works) and 35.940-
3 (costs allowable, if approved) of the construction grants regulations
(40 CFR Part 35). These changes in the construction grants regulations
require a change in eligibility of land costs as described by PRM 75-25,
but do not affect PRM 75-39 or PRM 77-5.
-------
POLICY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1977 (P.L.
95-217) make the land that will be used for storage of treated wastewater
in land treatment systems prior to land application an eligible cost as
of December 27, 1977. Previously, the cost of land for the temporary
storage of effluent was not eligible (PRM 75-25). Acquirement of land
for storage purposes must be by purchase rather than lease or easement.
There are two approaches for providing temporary storage that will
be cost eligible.
1. The cost of land will be eligible for all ponds constructed
specifically to meet storage needs due to climate or a seasonal
imbalance between wastewater supply and application schedules.
The period and total volume of storage provided should be
commensurate with the discussion in Section 5.3 (pages 5-30
thru 5-38) of the Design Manual on Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater (EPA 625/1-77-008). Thase storage ponds should be
designed with the maximum depth appropriate for site conditions,
2. All or part of the land will be eligible for ponds which are
constructed for combination treatment and storage purposes if
such combination ponds meet the definitions and criteria as
listed in (a) through (d) below:
(a) Storage volume is defined as that portion of the pond
desianed to provide the total storage needs due to climate or
a seasonal imbalance between wast&wacer supply and application
schedules as for (1) above. Storage volume could represent
the entire volume of a separate cell or that portion above the
treatment volume in a combined treatment/storage cell.
(b) Treatment volume is that portion of the pond specifically
designed for biological stabilization of the wastewater. It
may be the entire volume of a treatment cell or the depth
below the liquid level that was designed for treatment in a
combined treatment/storage cell.
(c) If the volume provided for storage is greater than the
volume provided for treatment in any cell of the pond, then
the total land area for that cell is eligible.
(d) If the volume provided for storage is equal to or less
than the volume provided for treatment in any cell of the
pond, then the eligible area will be determined as the ratio
of the storage volume to the total volume of that cell.
-------
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE
The provisions of this program requirements memorandum apply to all
projects which had not been given Agency approval of the Step 1 facilities
plan as of December 27, 1977. These provisions supplement PRM #75-25,
which remains in effect.
REFERENCES
Program Requirements Memorandum 75-25 of July 18, 1975
(formerly PGM-49)
Program Requirements Memorandum 75-39 of April 2, 1975
(formerly PGM-67)
Program Requirements Memorandum 77-5 of December 15, 1976
40 CFR 35.905-23
40 CFR 35.940-3
EPA 625/1-77-008: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
17FEB 19/8
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM'NO. 78-5
SUBJECT: Interim Management of FY 197G State Priority Lists
Under the 1977 Amendments
FROii: oohn T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Hater Program Operations (l-JH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators
PURPOSE
This nemorandum outlines EP.'i policy concerning annual State project
priority list r:.anager;,ent for the remainder or FY 107o under the Clean
Water Act Amendments of 1C77. Except as indicate harein, the policy
and procedures for priority list ..lanagenent are still reflected in PrlEi
77-7, i.anagement of State Project Priority Lists.
BACKGROUND
The Clean Water Act of 1977 included several amendments to P.L. 92-
500 that could potentially affect existing State priority systems and
State priority list management. The scope of these changes will not be
known until interim regulations implementing the priority list provisions
are publis!i3d. The current situation is as follows:
1. T.ie FY 197G priority lists are the basis for considering
project funding through September 30, 1978. Most FY 1978 priority
lists, under Lhe $4.13 billion expected appropriation, have been submitted
and reviewed by EPA pursuant to the policies and procedures outlined in
PRii 77-7. i-iany FY 1978 lists have been approved or are approvable,
pending receipt of the FY 1978 funds.
-------
-2-
2. The FY 1978 authorization for $4.5 billion, contained in the
1977 Amendments, has been allotted (subject to appropriation) in accordance
with the regulation published in the Federal Register on January 10,
1978. An appropriation of $4.5 billion is expected to be enacted -in the
next couple of months.
3. Regulations in response to the 1977 Amendments are currently
in for,-.iLlacion, and will not be published in interim final form before
• lay, 1978.
4. ;o projects ..lay be funded using the expected FY 1978 appropriation
until a FY U/8 priority list has been approved by the Regional Administrator
under current policy and procedures.
POLICY
1. States and Regions are to continue to process grant applications
up to the point of grant award for projects which reasonably can be
expected to receive :rancs uiirliij, FY 70, 3it:;jr '.-.cause the projects are
on or expected to be on an approved or approvablc priority list. States
may sub..;it but not actjally certify the application to EPA for award,
however, until funds are available and the priority list approved.
£. ::othing in the 1D77 ,"»i:iend..ients randai.es i:.i.'.iediate chances to
current State priority planning for tha FY 1C7G planning year. States
nay elact to propose chances based on the 1S77 /..ic.idments for FY 1970,
but should be advised that such chanc,as ca.inot be considered by EPA
until f/jbli cation of intsri regulations in ,;oy, 1:78. As a cetera1
policy, ths Regions should follow L!;O procedure's for intorif.i fianarja.iont
of the FY 1978 priority lists as outlined oclo>::
o For those States with currently approved or approvable FY 78
priority lists, no modification for compliance with the 1977
Amendments is required or expected.
o States which are currencly without an approved or approvable
FY 1978 priority list should be directed to comply with the
Cteite program planning regulations (40 CFR 35.563 through
05.355) and the existing procedures in PRM 77-7 to avoid delay
in making awards once funds are made available. The Region
should be ready to approve all FY 1978 lists under the existing
policy as soon as funds are appropriated. Projects may not be
funded in any State in the absence of an approved priority
list.
-------
-3-
IMPLEMENTATION
All States should immediately be informed of this interim priority
list policy. States should continue to process grant applications as
provided above. Guidance on preparation of FY 1979 priority systems and
lists under the proposed priority list regulations will be issued by
Headquarters no later than May, 1978.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
PRM No. 78-6
SUBJECT: Industrial Cost Recovery—Interim Guidance
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I thru X
ATTN: Water Division Directors
I. ISSUE;
This memorandum establishes interim guidance on the implementation
of industrial cost recovery (ICR) requirements under the Clean Water Act
of 1977.
II. DISCUSSION;
Section 24 of the Clean Water Act exempts from ICR requirements,
any industrial user which discharges 25,000 gpd or less of sanitary
waste or a volume of process waste, or combined process and sanitary
waste equivalent to 25,000 gpd or less, of sanitary waste if the discharge
does not contain pollutants which interfere, or are incompatible with,
or contaminate, or reduce the utility of sludge. Regardless of any
subsequent change in the Act which might lower the volume of discharge
exempted from ICR, industrial users exempt under the current law will
never be liable for payments which might have been due after December 31,
1977, until a change in the Act. In addition, an ICR system can be
based on a system wide approach, instead of being based on each individual
project (regulations to be issued in Ilay will provide guidance on this
provision).
Section 75 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to study the efficiency
of, and the need for, the payment by industrial users. A report of
findings from this study must be submitted to the Congress by December
27, 1978. Until June 30, 1979, EPA can not require grantees to enforce
provisions which require industrial users to make ICR payments. Any
payment by industrial users which is due after December 31, 1977, but
before July 31, 1979, (the moratorium) shall be paid after the moratorium
-------
-2-
in accordance with the applicable ICR requirement at that time. The
payment may be made in equal annual installments prorated over the
remaining useful life of the treatment works.
The Conference Report on section 75 states that:
(1) EPA is to continue to make grants and not to withhold any
funding due to failure to comply with current ICR requirements.
(2) The moratorium on ICR payments does not exempt any grantee
from the requirement to develop an ICR system.
(3) At the end of the moratorium, if the Congress has not changed
the ICR provisions, grantees must begin to collect ICR.
Regulations implementing these sections and detailed guidelines
will be issued at a later time, but the following policies are established
for immediate use.
III. POLICY;
1. Any grant payments withheld due to ICR requirements shall be
released. (However, grant payments being withheld for any other requirements
are not to be released.)
2. Grantees should be advised that they are not exempt from the
requirement to develop ICR systems during the moratorium, and that the
cost of developing the system is grant eligible. Any ICR system approved
by the Regional Administrator must exempt users discharging the equivalent
of 25,000 gpd or less of sanitary waste.
3. EPA officials shall not require grantees to enforce the payment
of ICR by industrial users for the period between December 28, 1977,
and June 30, 1979. Grantees may collect ICR from users discharging more
than the equivalent of 25,000 gpd of sanitary waste, but no payment
to the Federal government shall be made. If grantees choose to collect
ICR they shall hold 50 percent (the portion which would be sent to EPA
in the absence of a moratorium) of the amounts they collect until June 30,
1979, or until EPA provides disbursement guidance, and shall invest those
amounts in accordance with ICR Guidelines.
4. Grantees must continue to monitor industrial users during the
moratorium to determine their ICR payment obligation in case ICR payments
resume after June 30, 1979.
5. Any ICR due for the grantee's ICR year ending before January 1,
1978, must be collected and disbursed in accordance with current ICR
requirements.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION;
These policies are effective retroactive to December 27, 1977.
-------
$ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
OFFICE OF WA PER AND
HAZARDOUS MATKRI
-------
-2-
In most cases, separate contracts are entered into for Step 2 and
for Step 3 work. A grantee may continue to do so when it receives a
Step 2+3 grant. A grantee is not required to enter into a single contract
for preparation of plans and specifications along with construction when
it receives a Step 2+3 grant.
IV. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
EPA Regional Offices will review all Step 2+3 applications for
compliance with the following:
1. Population. The population of the applicant municipality must
be 25,000 or less as determined by most recent United States
Census information.
2. Cost. The total estimated Step 3 construction cost of treatment
works necessary to comply with the requirements of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 must not exceed $2,000,000 (the cost is
exclusive of supporting costs such as technical or administrative
services) or $3,000,000 in States determined by the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Hater Program Operations to have
unusually high costs of construction. At the present time,
Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota and New York are
so designated. Based upon Meeds Survey standard cost curves,
cost in these States were determined to be more than one standard
deviation from the norm.
3. Priority Certification. The States must provide priority
certification for the combined Step 2 and 3 project. Projects
which appear on an approved priority list for Step 2 funding
but not for Step 3 funding are not eligible for a Step 2+3
award. States may amend their project priority list to provide
priority for the combined steps; however, such amendments must
be consistent with the approved State priority system.
The total amount of the Step 2+3 award must derive from the current
State allocation.
V. GRANT CONDITIONS
Step 2+3 grants are subject to all requirements that apply to separate
Step 2 and Step 3 grants except that only a single application is required
and plans and specifications are not required prior to grant award.
Additional requirements of a Step 2+3 grant award are:
1. That the grantee identify and maintain a firm schedule for the
submission of construction plans and specifications, suitable
for bidding purposes, Operation and Maintenance Manual, and an
approvable user charge/industrial cost recovery system (UC/ICR); and
-------
-3-
2. Plans and specifications and the UC/ICR systems must be submitted
and approved in writing by the Regional Administrator prior to
advertisement for bids for the Step 3 construction work; and
3. The cost of all Step 3 construction work initiated prior to
approval of plans and specifications shall be disallowed with
the exception of the cost of those items specifically authorized
in accordance with procedures established under S35.925-18(b)
of the current construction grant regulation.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION
States are to be advised at once of the Agency's policy with regard
to this subject area and are to be requested to begin immediately review-
ing individual grant applications to implement the requirements set forth
above. This policy shall not apply to Step 2 grant applications received
by the Regions prior to the effective date of this PRM.
GPO 927 009
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
13 1978
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
^GS
SUBJECT: Rejection of All Bids:
Concurrence Function
FROM: John T. Rhett
Deputy Assistant Administrator/
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
Joseph M. Zorc
Assistant Gener
TO: Water Division Directors (I-X)
Regional Counsels (I-X)
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 78-8
Guidance for EPA
PURPOSE;
The purpose of this PRM is to set forth a revised Agency procedure
for handling a proposed rejection by a grantee of all bids on Step 3
projects.
POLICY:
It is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency that
procurement for Step 3 construction contracts will be undertaken in a
manner to best achieve free and open competition. 40 CFR § 35.936-3.
Achievement of that Federal interest requires a standard which inhibits
rejection of all bids and resolicitation. While the Environmental
Protection Agency regulations provide that a grantee may reserve the
right to reject all bids [40 CFR § 35.938-4(h)(2)], the exercise of that
right is contingent upon a grantee's demonstration of good cause for
that proposed action. Any good cause demonstration must reflect that
the public interest is best served by rejection of all bids, considering
applicable Environmental Protection Agency requirements. Additionally,
the absence of good cause for rejection of all bids is incompatible with
the good faith efforts of all associated parties within the grants
process as well as self-defeating in terms of local water pollution
abatement efforts.
-------
DISCUSSION;
The Environmental Protection Agency has established a concurrence
function, regarding a grantee's proposed rejection of all bids on Step 3
construction grant projects, to determine whether adequate good cause is
demonstrated. The following criteria are representative of circumstances
in which good cause for rejection of all bids may be found:
(1) The specifications are ambiguous, inadequate, restrictive, or
otherwise deficient and an addendum to the original invitation for
bids is no longer possible.
(2) The needs of the grantee have changed and the change could
not be imposed upon bidders consistent with applicable procure-
ment requirements.
(3) The specification requirement(s) is(are) determined not to
be necessary.
(4) The bids received indicate that the grantee's quality
requirements were overstated.
(5) The amounts of all acceptable bids (i.e., responsive and
responsible) are reasonable but the grantee is unable to fund the
non-Federal share of project costs associated with the lowest
acceptable bid (variables to consider, in this regard, are the
financial capability of the grantee, the dollar amounts of the
bids and their percent over the engineer's estimate).
(6) The amounts of all otherwise acceptable bids (i.e., respon-
sive and responsible) are unreasonable. This is an obvious matter
for subjective judgment including some deference to the procuring
entity and concerns various factors among which is the validity
of the engineer's estimate.
(7) The bids received failed to provide sufficient competition
to insure fair prices.
(8) The bids:
(a) were not independently arrived at in open competition;
(b) were collusive; or
(c) were submitted in bad faith.
-------
(9) Applicable Federal law or policy (for example, the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et sec[.) requires delay
or further study of the project.
Good cause for rejection of all bids may not be found where the
following is evidenced:
(1) Litigation is instituted concerning contract award, although
litigation may prove a proper ground for rejection of all bids
where prolonged.
(2) The specification requirements are relaxed by a grantee and
the relaxation would not materially affect competition and would
result in only minor savings.
(3) The invitation for bids contained omissions, errors or ambiguities
which did not adversely affect competition, if:
(a) award would result in a binding contract concerning all
material requirements;
(b) performance would satisfy the needs of the grantee; and
(c) the rules of formal advertising, as contained in Agency
regulation, or fundamental principles of procurement necessary
to insure free and open competition, would not be violated.
(4) A local or in-State bidder has not submitted the low bid.
GRANT ELIGIBILITY;
Nothing in this PRM prohibits a Regional Administrator, in recognition
of a paramount Federal interest, from limiting the amount of grant
assistance on any resolicitation to the Federal share of the lowest bid
which could have been accepted by a grantee, or from requiring bid rejection.
PROCEDURE;
The above criteria should provide sufficient guidance to permit
each Regional Water Division to establish procedures for review of
proposed rejections of all bids and concurrence or nonconcurrence on the
part of the Agency. Additional review by Headquarters, on a case-by-
case basis, is not a requirement for the performance of the Agency
concurrence function and generally need not be sought. Advice must be
requested from Regional Counsels in matters concerning rejection of all
bids. Headquarters should be involved in cases which concern issues of
policy definition. A copy of the Regional Office memorandum or other
record of each concurrence/nonconcurrence will be forwarded to both the
Headquarters Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction
Division (WH-547) and the Assistant General Counsel, Grants (A-134).
-------
Generally, after rejection of all bids the plans and specifications
or bidding documents will require modification to assure the correction
of the circumstances which led to rejection. In no case will negotiation
with a low bidder be utilized in lieu of rejection of all bids and read-
vertising in order for the grantee to get within budget.
Cancellation;
This PRM cancels Harold P. Cahill's memorandum of September 1, 1976,
(subjet: "Rejection of Bids on Step III Construction Grant Projects:), and
that of Jack Washburn, dated November 6, 1976, (subject: "Headquarters
Concurrence with Regional Offices' Recommendation on Rejection of Bids by
Grantees"). The policy and procedures established in this memorandum are
effective immediately.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
_, ,rt-,, OFFICE OF WATER AND
MAR 3 19/O HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM I 78-9
SUBJECT: Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects
John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Admin
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator (J I
for Water Program Operations (WH-5461 ***••
I
TO: Regional Administrators
Attn: Water Division Directors
I. PURPOSE
This memorandum supersedes Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM)
NO. 77-8, on construction grant funding of sewage collection system
projects and amends that policy in accordance with P.L. 95-217. This
memorandum sets forth guidance for rigorous review of grant applications
to ensure that proposed projects meet the established requirements of
both P.L. 92-500 and P.L. 95-217, plus the construction grant regulations.
II. DISCUSSION
j SnW?ge "llec^ion system Projects may be grant eligible projects
under P.L. 92-500 (the Act). Eligibility is limited, however, by
bection 211 of the Act which provides for funding of collection systems
only (1) for the replacement or major rehabilitation of an existing
collection system or (2) for new collection systems in existing communities,
Sewage collection systems are defined in 40 CFR S35.905-19 as:
For the purpose of §35.925-13, each, and all, of the common
lateral sewers, within a publicly-owned treatment system, which are
primarily installed to receive wastewaters directly from facilities
which convey wastewater from individual structures or from private
property, and which include service connection "Y" fittings designed
for connection with those facilities. The facilities which convey
wastewater from individual structures or from private property to
the public lateral sewer, or its equivalent, are specifically
excluded from the definition, with the exception of pumping units,
and pressurized lines, for individual structures or groups of
structures when such units are cost-effective and are owned and
maintained by the grantee.
-------
-2-
The eligibility of sewage collection system projects is further
defined in 40 CFR S35.925-13, which reads:
That, if the project is for, or includes sewage collection
system work, such work (a) is for replacement or major rehabilitation
of an existing sewer system pursuant to S35.927-3(a) and is necessary
to the total integrity and performance of the waste treatment works
servicing such community, or (b) is for a new sewer system in a
community in existence on October 18, 1972, with sufficient existing
or planned capacity to adequately treat such collected sewage.
Replacement or major rehabilitation of an existing sewer system may
be approved only if cost-effective and must result in a sewer
system design capacity equivalent only to that of the existing
system plus a reasonable amount for future growth. A community,
for purposes of this section, would include any area with substantial
human habitation on October 18, 1972. No award may be made for a
new sewer system in a community in existence on October 18, 1972,
unless it is further determined by the Regional Administrator that
the bulk (generally two-thirds) of the flow design capacity through
the sewer system will be for waste waters originating from the
community (habitation) in existence on October 18, 1972.
The above sections of the EPA regulations implement Section 211 of
P.L. 92-500.
Section 36 of P.L. 95-217 amends Section 211 of P.L. 92-500 to
preclude use of the population density criterion in PRM 77-8 as a test
of grant eligiblity for collector sewer projects but permits use of the
criterion for evaluating alternatives. A one household per two acre
density criterion may be used only for identifying less closely populated
areas where individual or other small wastewater treatment systems are
likely to be more cost-effective than collector sewers and thus must
be evaluated in detail if collector sewers are proposed for such areas.
Such use of the population density criterion should assist with and
simplify the cost-effectiveness analysis for collector sewer projects.
All treatment works funded under the Construction Grants Program
must be cost-effective to comply with the requirements of the Acts.
Treatment works are defined in Section 212 to include sewage collection
systems. EPA cost-effectiveness requirements are found in 40 CFR
S35.925-and in Appendix A to 40 CFR, Part 35.
Public disclosure of costs is a fundamental prerequisite for all
grants projects, including collection systems. Program Requirements
Memorandum 76-3, "Presentation of Local Government Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Works in Facility Plans," August 16, 1976, requires that cost
information be presented at all public hearings held on facility plans
-------
-3-
after January 2, 1977. However, public hearings were held on many
collection system projects prior to this date. Special measures
are necessary to ensure the public is aware of the cost implications
of collection systems prior to their approval.
The following policy is to be followed in preparing future
grant applications for collection system projects. This policy
supplements all existing Agency regulations and policy statements.
It provides guidance for more rigorous review of grant applications
to ensure that proposed projects meet the established requirements
of the law and regulations. Compliance with this policy will help
to assure that only grant eligible and cost-effective collection
system projects are funded by EPA.
III. Policy
EPA policy on the funding of sewage collection systems is as
follows:
A. Substantial human habitation
New collector sewer projects are eligible for funding only in
a community in existence on October 18, 1972, with sufficient
existing or planned capacity to adequately treat such collected
sewage. A community qualifying for Federal grant assistance
to construct a collector sewer system may be a geographic or
jurisdictional area that is smaller than the jurisdiction of the
municipality applying for the treatment facility grant. The
Title II regulation states in Section 35.925-13 that a community
would include any area with substantial human habitation on
October 18, 1972. The bulk (generally two-thirds) of the flow
design capacity through the sewer system is to be for wastewaters
originating from the habitation exsting on October 18, 1972.
The Agency policy is that areas to be served by new collector
sewer projects must meet the requirement for "substantial human
habitation." Habitation existing as of October 18, 1972, should
be evaluated block by block or, where typical city blocks do not
exist, by areas of five acres or less to determine if it is substan-
tial. Collector pipes designed primarily to serve blocks or five
acre areas without substantial human habitation as of October 18,
1972, would not be eligible for grant assistance.
B. Cost-effectiveness
New collector sewers must be proven in the facility plan to be
necessary and cost-effective in addition to being eligible under
the "substantial human habitation" and the two-thirds rule require-
ments.
-------
-4-
New collector sewers should be funded only when the systems in use
(e.g., septic tanks or raw discharges from homes) for disposal of wastes
from the existing population are creating a public health problem,
contaminating groundwater, or violating the point source discharge
requirements of the Act. Specific documentation of the nature and
extent of health, groundwater and discharge problems must be provided in
the facility plan, Where site characteristics are considered to restrict
the use of on-site systems, such characteristics, (e.g., groundwater
levels, soil permability, topography, geology, etc.) must be documented
by soil maps, historical data and other pertinent information.
The facility plan must also document the nature, number and location
of existing disposal systems (e.g., septic tanks) which are malfunction-
ing. A community survey of individual disposal systems is recommended
for this purpose, and is grant eligible.
Where the population density within the collection system area is
less than 1.7 persons per acre (one household per two acres), collector
sewer projects shall be considered non-cost-effective unless a severe
pollution or public health problem is specifically documented and
collector sewers are shown to be clearly less costly than any of the
alternatives for sparsely populated areas as cited below.
In addition, the facility plan must demonstrate, where population
density is less than ten persons per acre, that alternatives are less
cost-effective than new gravity collector sewer construction and
centralized treatment. Such alternatives are cited in the previous
Administrator's memorandum of December 30, 1976, subject: "Encouraging
Less Costly Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities."
The alternatives to be evaluated include the following:
--measures to improve operation and maintenance of existing septic
tanks, including more frequent inspections, timely pumpouts and prohibi-
tion of garbage grinders.
--new septic tanks.
--holding tanks and "honey wagons."
--various means of upgrading septic tanks, including mounds, alternate
leaching fields and pressure sewers plus ponds or other small treatment
facilities.
—other systems to serve individual households or a cluster of households.
Such systems include, for example, wastewater separation, water conservation
and recycle systems where feasible.
-------
The facility plan, where applicable, must examine alternatives
such as limited sewer service for a portion of a community. For
example, septic systems work very well in many small towns except
in one isolated area such as a business district where open space
for adequate on-site disposal is not available.
The collection system shall not afford capacity for new habitations
or other establishments to be located on environmentally sensitive
lands such as wetlands, floodplains or prime agricultural lands.
Moreover, the proposed collection system must conform with approved
208 plans and air quality plans, Executive Orders on Wetlands and
Floodplains, and Agency policy on wetlands.
C. Public disclosure of costs
All projects, including collection systems, on which public
hearings were held after January 2, 1977, must comply fully with
the requirements of Program Requirements Memorandum 76-3 prior to
approval.
Agency policy is to ensure public disclosure of the costs of
any collection system projects where a public hearing was held on
or before January 2, 1977. Such disclosures shall take the form of
a prominently published notice in a local newspaper, and the cost
is grant eligible.
The notice shall include the estimated monthly charge for
operation and maintenance, the estimated monthly debt service
charge, the estimated connection charge and the total monthly
charge to a typical residential customer for the new collection
system being funded and any other associated wastewater facilities
required. Such associated facilities would include new treatment
capacity needed to handle the flows from the new collection system.
The charges may only be rough estimates, and may be presented
as a range of possible costs when major unknowns exist, such as
whether or not substantial parts of the project are grant eligible.
IV. Implementation
The States are to be advised of the issuance of this amended policy
at once. All pending and future grant applications for collection
system projects or projects containing collection systems are to be
reviewed for compliance with this policy.
-------
V. References
A. Sections 201, 211, 212, P.L. 92-500 and Section 36 of P.L. 95-
217.
B. 40 CFR SS35.905-19, 925-7, 925-13, Appendix B.
C. PRM 76-3, "Presentation of Local Government Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Works in Facility Plans," August 16, 1976.
D. Memorandum to Regional Administrators from Russell E. Train,
"Encouraging Less Costly Wastewater Facilities for Small
Communities," December 30, 1976.
-------
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
MAR 1 7 1978
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 78-10
SUBJECT: Infiltration/Inflow Program Guidance
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator ^fcf*t*\ / f^~s&+4f
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators (I-X)
ATTN: Water Division Directors
Purpose
This program requirements memorandum provides an optional procedure
for implementing the requirements of the infiltration/inflow (I/I)
program. This optional procedure is intended to substantially reduce
the seasonal dependency of the I/I work, which is commonly done during
high groundwater conditions; simplify the review of I/I reports; expedite
project completion; and increase the reliability of results used in
determining project size and design. Specifically, the memorandum
provides:
1. a technique for rapidly screening out non-excessive I/I projects;
2. a simplified scope of work for I/I investigations; and
3. a mechanism for performing sewer testing and repairing concurrently.
-------
-2-
Discussion
In accordance with Section 201(g)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 40 CFR §35.927 of the construction grant
regulations requires that the grant applicant determine whether excessive
I/I exists. A cost-effectiveness analysis is required by S35.927-l(b)
for determining the possible existence of excessive I/I. If the analysis
demonstrates the possible existence of excessive I/I, a sewer system
evaluation survey (SSES) must be completed before proceeding with
project design (see §i35.927-l(c) and 35.927-1). Details of this
program are described in EPA's "Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation and
rehabilitation."
Increasing evidence from field experience to date strongly indicates
that certain modifications to the I/I program in the following areas
would be of benefit:
1. The scope of work in the investigative phase is too complex
and over-emphasized. As a result, I/I studies have been
excessively costly and time consuming, while the actual
rehabilitation has often been delayed for years.
2. The regulatory review process is time consuming and extremely
difficult because of the subjective nature of the cost-
effectiveness study in the I/I analysis and difficulty in
accurately determining the scope of work in the sewer system
evaluation survey (SSES). As a result, sewer systems having
excessive I/I may not be identified for repair in some cases
and contract costs for SSES work may be unnecessarily high in
others.
3. The redundant requirement for sewer line cleaning and internal
inspection for both SSES and rehabilitation is costly and can
be alleviated by allowing sewer grouting and minor replacement
to be performed under a Step 1 grant.
4. Elimination of I/I sources based on visual inspection may not
be effective. More specifically, the present approach may
simply cause that portion of I/I supposedly eliminated to
migrate to other weak joints or create new I/I sources which
were not leaking initially. In fact, this phenomenon has been
verified by case study reports and field observations. To
address this concern more comprehensively, the effectiveness
of the I/I program will be evaluated through a proposed
contract which is presently being processed.
-------
-3-
In 1977, a Streamlining Committee comprised of representatives from
the Regions and Headquarters identified I/I as one of the subjects to
investigate. As a result, in July, a simplified I/I procedure was
recommended by the Streamlining Committee.
The procedure described in this memorandum will substantially
resolve the specific points discussed above. Pending the results of
the proposed I/I study and field experience gained from the use of these
procedures, it is possible that additional improvements to the program
will also be made in the future.
Policy
1. The use of the procedure described in this PRM is optional.
However, because the procedure is simple and may result in a more
effective I/I program, its application should be encouraged whenever
applicable.
2. Based on the results of an EPA contract study in 1975 and cost
analysis data, it is reasonable to assume that a maximum infiltration
rate of less than 1500 gallons per day per inch of pipe diameter
per mile of the sewer pipe (gpd/in/m) is not economical to rehabili-
tate and therefore is non-excessive. The 1500 gpd/in/m criterion
is not to be used as an infiltration allowance in the hydraulic
design of a new sewer system.
3. When the infiltration rate is above 1500 gpd/in/m, a cost-effectiveness
analysis is required to determine if further investigation of the
problem is warranted.
4. For purposes of the I/I analysis, the 1500 gpd/in/m criterion
should be applied to the infiltration rate determined for the
entire sewer system. Accordingly, flow charts for the treatment
plants may be used as a basis for this I/I determination. For
large systems, especially where flow charts at the pump stations
are available or where specific problem areas are known or suspected
by the grantee, a subsystem analysis on those particular areas is
generally warranted.
5. The grantee may perform minor sewer rehabilitation (excluding sewer
separation) under the Step 1 grant process subject to State and EPA
approval. An amendment to the Step 1 grant will be required for EPA
participation in the cost of minor sewer rehabilitation. The extent
of the minor rehabilitation which may be performed under this pro-
vision is subject to Regional judgement and must be consistent with
the overall scope of the Step 1 grant. Minor rehabilitation may
include, for example, elimination of excessive infiltration by means
of concurrent pressure testing and grouting or correction of a limited
number of obviously excessive inflow sources by replacing manhole covers,
raising the grade of the manhole access, disconnecting cross connections,
structural repairs or replacement of a limited number of sewer sections.
However, rehabilitation work which should be a part of the grantee's
-------
-4-
normal operation and maintenance responsibilities should not be
included within the scope of a treatment works project. (See the
analogous requirement of s35.927-3(a).)
6. Any rehabilitation work to be performed under a Step 1 grant which
is not accomplished through force account work in accordance with
§30.645, must be procured through a competitive bidding process in
compliance with all of the applicable requirements of §s35.938
through 35.938-9 and 35.939 of the Construction Grants Regulations
(Subpart E of Part 35), the statutory requirements referenced in
5S30.415 through 30.415-4 and other applicable provisions of the
General Grant Regulations (Part 30). In cases where the concurrent
sewer testing and sealing technique is used, the bidding package
should include sewer line cleaning, pressure testing of sewer
joints, and grouting.
7. A positive indication of an active sewer maintenance program will
be required before the Step 3 grant is awarded. The program should
be prepared after the sewer rehabilitation is completed and should
provide a schedule for eliminating any remaining excessive I/I
including those inflow sources originating from service lines which
are cost effective to eliminate.
8. The provisions of this memorandum are not applicable to inflow and
overflows from combined sewers; issues related to inflow and combined
sewer overflows are addressed separately in PRM #75-34 (PGM #61).
Implementation
The conditions described in this PRM and the attachment are applicable
for any appropriate Step 1 projects.
Attachments
-------
Procedure
The following procedure supplements the existing EPA handbook
entitled "Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation," MCD-
19, dated December 1975.
I. I/I Analysis
a. When the flow meters at the treatment plants are determined to
be well maintained and acceptably accurate, the quantity of I/I should
be determined on the basis of plant flow charts in conjunction with the
calculated theoretical base flow. A subsystem approach for determining
I/I conditions may be advisable in large systems, especially where flow
records for pump stations are available or where specific problem areas
are known or suspected by the grantee.
b. When the maximum infiltration rate based on the highest weekly
(7 days) average within a twelve month period is less than 1500 gallons
per day per inch of pipe diameter per mile of sewer, including service
laterals, the infiltration is considered non-excessive. This should
normally be based on the total system flow.
c. For infiltration rates greater than 1500 gpd/in/m, a cost-
effectiveness study is required for determining the possible existence
of excessive infiltration.
d. For separate sanitary sewers, possible existence of excessive
inflow should be determined by performing a cost-effectiveness analysis.
e. The results obtained from an economic study in the I/I analysis
phase are, at best, preliminary and subject to further verification when
possible excessive I/I exists. Therefore, the cost-effective analysis
should be simple and brief, and additional data should not be routinely
required.
f. A report summarizing the results based on the above analysis is
required by EPA. The report should provide flow data necessary to
substantiate the report's conclusions. When I/I is determined to be
possibly excessive, the report should include, in addition to flow data,
a detailed study program and estimated costs for performing such a study
based on subsection (a)-(f) of section II below.
II. Subsystem Evaluation and Rehabilitation
The following procedure should be used for subsystem evaluation and
rehabilitation.
a. Divide the system into subsystems or mini-systems and monitor
the flow in each subsystem.
b. Compare the infiltration rate with the infiltration allowance
of 1500 gpd/in/m and determine whether infiltration is excessive in
accordance with subsections (b) and (c) of section I above (the I/I
Analysis).
-------
c. Repeat subsection (d) of section I above for determining
inflow.
d. For those subsystems where I/I is determined to be excessive,
flow isolation, smoke testing and physical inspection should be used to
further define the I/I problems. Again, determination of infiltration
should be based on the procedure described under subsections (b) and (c)
of section I above.
e. For those inflow sources identified by means of smoke testing,
a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed based on various categories
(e.g., catch basin, house drain, manhole cover, etc).
f. Submit a report summarizing the results of the study required
by subsection (a) - (e) of this section. The report should also include:
(1) supporting data; (2) a proposed rehabilitation program; (3) a
detailed cost estimate for the proposed rehabilitation program; and (4)
bidding specifications for the proposed rehabilitation program.
For large sewer systems where the I/I problem is generally more
complex, this report can be submitted prior to completion of the bidding
documents to avoid project delays. In these cases, bidding documents
should be prepared during the time that the report is being reviewed by
the State and EPA and submitted pending the preliminary finding of this
review.
When concurrent sewer testing and sealing techniques are used, the
bidding package should include sewer line cleaning, pressure testing and
grouting. When applicable, the bidding document should also include
other sewer repairs such as manholes and cover, structure, etc. Bidding
prices should be specified in unit costs (e.g., price per foot of sewer
cleaned, price per joint of sewer pressure tested or chemically grouted).
Any rehabilitation work to be performed under the above bidding documents
or bidding package which is not accomplished through force account work
in accordance with §30.645, must be procured through a competitive
bidding process in compliance with all of the applicable requirements of
§§35.938 through 35.938-9 and 35.939 of the Construction Grants Regulations
(Subpart E of Part 35), the statutory requirements referenced in §130.415
through 30.415-4 and other applicable provisions of the General Grant
Regulations (Part 30).
The recommended rehabilitation program should be in accordance with
the following: (1) whenever applicable, the techniques providing concurrent
pressure testing and sealing of individual sewer joint should be used
for eliminating infiltration; and (2) excessive inflow sources originating
from public and private sewers should be identified separately. Grant
eligibility pertaining to the costs for correcting inflow sources is
limited to those associated with the correction of inflow sources
originating from public sewers only.
-------
g. To ensure that the concurrent pressure testing and sealing
techniques are effectively applied, infiltration problems must be
isolated to that section or those sections of the sewer within each
subsystem which are actually subject to excessive infiltration. Further,
sewer grouting should be limited to those sections of the sewer which
are structurally sound and which have service line connections in good
condition. Accordingly, prior to the actual testing and sealing process,
a brief internal inspection should be done by pulling the television
camera quickly through the sewer line. When it is determined that
rehabilitation methods other than grouting are required (i.e., structural
repair), this should be recorded and the sewer identified. The testing
and sealing process should not be performed in that section.
h. Subject to the eligiblity requirements of 40 CFR §35.927-3(a),
which prohibits the funding of rehabilitation which should be a part of
the applicant's normal operation and maintenance responsibilities,
structural repairs and sewer replacement may be performed under a Step 1
grant when approved by the State and EPA. However, when such repairs
are required for a substantial portion of the sewer system, especially
in cases where public hearings are warranted, the grantee should propose
that repair work be performed at later dates and perhaps as part of Step
2 or Step 3.
III. Sewer System Maintenance
a. Following the rehabilitation phase, a final analysis on the I/I
conditions should be performed by means of plant flow charts. When
available, pump stations flow data or single point flow monitoring at
the treatment plant should be used. The analysis should be simple and
brief to allow a determination of the total quantity of non-excessive
I/I remaining in the system. In addition, the analysis should be
performed based on flow data obtained during groundwater conditions
comparable to those when the initial I/I condition was determined.
b. A positive and realistic maintenance program which addresses
the following should be submitted to EPA.
(1) The timely elimination of all excessive inflow sources origi-
nating from private sources which can be cost-effectively removed.
An acceptable timetable should specify the elimination of these
inflow sources before the completion of the treatment works construction;
(2) The establishment of continuing sewer maintenance programs to
ensure that the sewer systems will not be subject to excessive I/I
in the future.
Guidelines for preparing a sewer maintenance program will be prepared
and published in the near future. In the interim, an acceptable sewer
maintenance program should provide (1) a comprehensive plan which incorporates
both preventive and corrective measures, and (2) a realistic schedule
for eliminating inflow sources originating from private sewers and roof
drains.
*US Government Printing Office- 1978-777-066/1117 Regions
------- |